get_clip_grade

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a non-mutating inspection operation, but does not explain behavior for clips with no grading nodes or Fusion compositions, potential latency, or any prerequisites. This is minimal behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording. Every phrase contributes semantic content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, but the description omits guidance on item_id provenance, when to choose this over set_clip_grade, and expectations for clips without grade data. With no annotations, the description leaves an agent without enough context to confidently call the tool in varied situations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention item_id at all or clarify its format, provenance, or what constitutes a clip item. Since the schema provides no parameter documentation and the description does not compensate, an agent gets no added meaning beyond the bare property name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and names the exact resource ('color grading nodes, versions, and Fusion compositions on a clip'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from write-oriented siblings like set_clip_grade and from unrelated clip operations such as get_clip_transform.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The inspect verb implies this is the read-only tool for grading data, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives. The contrast with set_clip_grade is present in the sibling list but not in the description itself, so usage guidance remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.