ffkit_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. It clearly states the effect (trimming a segment) and specifies time format constraints (HH:MM:SS.ms or seconds). It does not cover side effects, output format, or whether the operation modifies the original file, but given the lack of annotations, the description's transparency is strong for a simple trimming tool.

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 two concise sentences, with zero waste. Each sentence provides essential information: the action and the parameter alternatives plus time format. It is well front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core usage adequately. It explains the trimming operation, parameter combinations, and time format. It could be improved by noting expected output format or that the operation is non-destructive, but it is largely complete for a straightforward trimming tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of end and duration, and by specifying allowed time formats. However, it does not clarify what happens if both end and duration are omitted or both provided beyond the schema's 'mutually exclusive' hints.

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 specific verbs ('Trim a segment from a media file') and clearly identifies the resource (media file). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating the action (trim) as opposed to adding subtitles, extracting audio, merging, or transcoding.

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 basic usage context (trim a segment) and mentions the two mutually exclusive parameter groups (start+end or start+duration). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools explicitly, nor does it state when not to use this tool (e.g., for concatenation or format conversion).

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