resolve_find_timeline_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'find' by detailing critical input semantics: timecode format ('absolute HH:MM:SS:FF'), seconds as elapsed since timeline start with a concrete example, end-frame exclusivity, and how track_index=0 searches all tracks. These details reveal how the tool interprets parameters and behaves, which is valuable transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second packs essential parameter semantics without padding. It is well-front-loaded and every clause adds information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers input semantics for time-based and track-index search but leaves gaps. It does not describe the return value (e.g., list of clips or a single clip), what happens on no match, or possible values for 'track_type.' This is a moderate level of completeness that allows a basic call but leaves some uncertainty for edge cases.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the meaning of 'timecode' and 'seconds' with formats and an example, clarifying 'track_index' behavior, and implying 'track_type' via 'selected type.' This is a meaningful layer of explanation above the raw schema, though it does not fully cover 'query' or enumerate 'track_type' values.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Find clips by name and/or position.' This is a specific verb ('find') with a clear resource ('timeline clips') and distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_find_media_clip (which targets the media pool). It also clarifies the scope ('timeline') through the tool name and description, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it (e.g., when looking in the media pool instead). While it implies usage by describing search methods, it lacks explicit comparisons or conditions that would help an agent choose it over other resolve find tools.

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