get_clip_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool reads (non-destructive) and implies no side effects, but does not detail return format or error conditions. It provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter hint is directly relevant. Every word earns its place.

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?

With output schema, the tool is well-specified for a simple getter. However, the lack of guidance on when track_index is needed and the absence of any note about prerequisites (e.g., must have a timeline open) leaves some room. Overall, adequate for typical use but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains item_id (including 'playhead' special value) but says nothing about track_index, which is arguably a critical disambiguation parameter when multiple clips share an ID. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool reads the current position, scale, rotation, crop, opacity, and blend mode of one timeline item. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_clip_transform and get_clip_grade by specifying the exact properties it reads. The verb 'read' indicates a non-mutating operation.

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 description explains how to use the item_id parameter, including the special value 'playhead' to target the clip under the playhead. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it versus a setter tool.

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