get_clip_warp_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get warp information') and does not describe expected output format, potential errors, side effects, or return value. For a 'get' tool, this is a notable gap, especially since the tool's scope ('warp information') is ambiguous.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose in a single sentence, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every sentence serves a function. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward getter tool.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and the existence of a very similar sibling tool (get_warp_markers), this description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'warp information' includes (e.g., warp mode, markers, tempo), how the response is structured, or how this tool differs from get_warp_markers. The description is adequate only as a minimal identification of the tool's purpose.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters and gives brief definitions: 'The index of the track' and 'The index of the clip slot.' This adds some meaning but does not clarify important details like zero-based indexing or how these indices are counted. The descriptions are minimally more informative than the parameter names themselves.

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's purpose: 'Get warp information for an audio clip.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (warp information) and is easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_warp_markers, which likely retrieves warp marker data specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements get_warp_markers or set_clip_warp_mode, nor does it explain any prerequisites or typical use cases. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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