clip_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states it is a read operation and describes a key behavior (returns all metadata if name omitted). This is sufficient for a simple read tool, though it does not mention auth needs or error conditions.

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 concise with two short sentences that deliver all essential information. No wasted words, and the key detail is front-loaded.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a basic read tool but leaves gaps. It does not explain the structure of metadata, potential return values, or error handling. Returns are unspecified, which may affect an agent's ability to parse results.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (handle, name) with no descriptions. The description adds meaning for the 'name' parameter by explaining that omitting it returns all metadata. It does not describe 'handle', but the name is clear. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 'Read clip metadata', specifying a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clip_set_metadata (write) and others by its read-only nature. The additional note about returning everything when name is omitted adds further purpose clarity.

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 implies usage for reading metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use or alternative tools, though the action is straightforward and siblings are all distinct in name.

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