select_clips_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name ('select clips by name') and offers no additional context about side effects, such as whether it clears previous selection, whether it matches substrings, or what happens if no clips match. It does not disclose any operational traits beyond the literal action.

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 short sentence, making it very concise. However, the phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds little value and could be considered filler. The key action is clearly present, and there is no redundant information beyond that prefix, so it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter details, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the selection behavior (e.g., exact name match, case sensitivity, whether it operates on the active sequence), nor does it provide enough context for an agent to know if this tool is suitable for a given task. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of essential behavioral details.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the schema is empty. The lack of parameter details does not detract from the tool's usability in this case.

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 selects clips by name, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like select_all_clips, select_clips_in_range, and select_clips_by_color by indicating the selection criterion (name). Despite the odd 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prefix, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. For example, it doesn't clarify whether it should be used for exact-match selection or fuzzy matching, nor does it contrast with select_clips_by_color or select_clips_in_range.

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