resolve_get_track_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the return-shape statement ('Returns JSON array of clips...') adds some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, error behavior, or what happens with invalid track_type/track_index values.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a terse Args block, and a one-line return note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers parameter semantics and mentions the return shape, but given an output schema already exists, that return mention adds limited value. It lacks usage context, sibling differentiation, and behavioral caveats, leaving the description only partially complete for a simple read tool.

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 explain the parameters. It does this well by enumerating valid track_type values ('video', 'audio', 'subtitle'), noting the 1-based nature of track_index, and providing defaults – all beyond the bare schema type definitions.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('all clips on a specific track'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like resolve_get_clip_properties or resolve_find_timeline_clip, but the 'all clips on a track' phrasing is enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, which is a notable gap given the large sibling set.

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