select_clips_in_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only restates the action. It does not explain whether the selection replaces or augments the current selection, how the range is defined, or any side effects. The description is behaviorally opaque beyond the literal verb.

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 brief and to the point, containing no verbose wording. However, the prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' is unnecessary filler that does not earn its place. The core action is conveyed in a minimal phrase.

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 lack of annotations and an output schema, and the presence of many sibling selection tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not define what 'in range' means, how the range is set, or how the selection interacts with existing selections. Critical context is missing for safe and correct invocation.

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 declares zero explicit parameters but allows arbitrary additional properties, and the description does not clarify how the range should be specified. An agent cannot determine whether to pass arguments (e.g., start/end times) or rely on existing state (e.g., in/out points). The description adds no meaning to the permissive schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('select clips'), and 'in range' suggests a defined scope, but the type of range (time, track, etc.) is never specified. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like select_all_clips or select_disabled_clips, but the ambiguity of 'range' and the filler 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prevent it from being fully clear.

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 the numerous alternative selection tools (select_all_clips, select_disabled_clips, select_clips_by_color, etc.). No prerequisites or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the agent without any basis for choosing this tool.

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