get_total_clip_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'get total clip count', providing no information about return type, potential errors, or whether it reads from the active sequence or the project. The 'expanded operation' phrase is uninformative.

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 short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is boilerplate filler that adds no value. It would be more concise if it simply said 'Get the total clip count.' The under-specification undermines efficiency.

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 tool has no output schema and no parameters, so the description must clarify what 'total clip count' refers to and what the result represents. The description leaves this ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent trying to decide whether to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The input schema is minimal and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to clarify.

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 action ('get') and the object ('total clip count'), accurately reflecting the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_sequence_count, and the phrase 'expanded operation' adds no specific scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what context it applies to (e.g., project vs sequence). The description simply restates the tool name without usage context.

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