get_clip_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without mentioning return format, side effects, error behavior, or whether the clip must exist. This is minimal and does not add transparency beyond the name itself.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter list could be more compactly integrated.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks an explanation of what the loop settings actually include or what the return value looks like. Since there is no output schema, this missing information is a gap for an agent that needs to consume the result.

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 parameter descriptions do add meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining that track_index refers to the track containing the clip and clip_index to the clip slot. However, they do not specify whether indices are zero-based, what valid ranges are, or any constraints, so the explanation is basic but not complete.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('loop settings of a clip'), which distinguishes it from write tools like set_clip_loop. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getters like get_clip_warp_info or get_clip_gain, but the resource name is specific enough.

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 alternatives such as set_clip_loop or the other get_clip_* tools. The description simply restates the function and parameters without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusion cases.

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