get_clip_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details about the return format (position in normalized and pixels, using sequence frame size) and the implicit read-only nature. It does not cover error cases or exhaustive property list, but the disclosed details are meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then specific details about output and sequenceId. No wasted words; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 no output schema, the description provides essential return value details (motion.position format) and a usage condition. It is fairly complete for a read-only property retrieval tool, though it does not enumerate all properties beyond motion.

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 100% for both parameters. The description adds extra context for sequenceId beyond the schema, explaining when it is needed. This is a value-add over the structured field descriptions.

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 gets detailed properties of a clip and specifically calls out Motion values, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_effect_properties or get_full_clip_info, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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?

Provides clear context for when to pass sequenceId (when clip ID came from list_sequence_tracks for a non-active sequence). It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the usage note is specific and actionable.

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