view_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the exact return shape (image plus per-frame timestamps), that it functions outside the Premiere project model, and the proxy path for speed. It does not discuss cost, latency, or limits on very long files, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action in caps and zero filler. The outcome, scope, performance tip, and follow-up tool each get exactly one clause.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description does the necessary work by describing the returned image and timestamps and the inspection use cases. It is nearly complete for a three-parameter read tool; only edge behavior (very long clips, failure modes on unreadable files) is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so path, width, and frames are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only indirect guidance — implying proxy paths are a valid input for the path parameter — without extra format or trade-off detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('SEE what is in a video file on disk') and immediately specifies the artifact returned: a contact-sheet image of evenly spaced frames plus timestamps. It distinguishes itself from the sibling view_moment by naming that tool as the follow-up for exact moments.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases (describe the clip, judge shake/focus/exposure, pick best sections), scope clarification ('works on any file, whether or not it is in the Premiere project'), an efficiency tip (point at proxies for speed), and routes to the alternative (view_moment) for a different need.

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