get_clip_at_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses only the basic read operation ('Gets') and does not mention edge cases (e.g., no clip at the specified time), return behavior, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata to supplement it.

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 a single sentence containing no filler or redundancy. It directly conveys the core function. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not specify what exactly is returned (a clip ID, object, etc.), what happens if the position falls between clips or beyond the track duration, or how this relates to similar tools. The user/agent is left without critical context for invocation and result interpretation.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions (time, trackType, trackIndex, sequenceId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither clarifies nor confuses parameter semantics.

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 using an action verb ('Gets') and a specific resource ('the clip at a specific time position on a track'). It is precise enough to be distinguished from the sibling tool 'get_clip_at_playhead' by explicitly mentioning 'specific time position' rather than the playhead. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself.

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 implies the usage context: when you need to retrieve a clip at an arbitrary time on a track. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar ones like 'get_clip_at_playhead' or 'get_selected_clips'. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the guidance is only implied.

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