resolve_get_clip_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the operation is a getter and describes the return format, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose failure behavior, error handling, or any environment dependencies.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args line adds the only necessary parameter detail, and the return note is useful without being verbose. Every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the input and the kind of returned data. It lacks explicit mention of the prerequisite that a project/media pool must be loaded, but the phrase 'in the media pool' provides partial context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that clip_name is a clip in the media pool. This adds relevant context beyond the bare schema property name, though it stops short of specifying naming requirements or edge cases.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed properties of a media pool clip.' It further specifies the return payload with concrete examples (duration, resolution, codec, fps), which makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools such as resolve_list_media or resolve_find_media_clip. It also does not mention prerequisites like requiring an active project or loaded media pool.

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