Get Clip At Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description is consistent with those annotations and adds a mild scoping trait ('specific time position' rather than playhead), but it discloses no edge-case behavior such as what happens when no clip exists at the requested position or whether a missing clip returns null or errors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation's purpose and scope, and nothing is repeated from the title or schema. This is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema present, full parameter coverage, and strong annotations, the definition is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks guidance distinguishing it from get_clip_at_playhead and omits any note about the empty-position edge case. These are gaps, but not critical ones given the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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%, with each parameter briefly described ('Track type', 'Track index (0-based)', 'Time position in seconds'). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The enum restriction on track_type and the 0-based note on track_index are already in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('the clip'), and a precise scope ('at a specific time position on a track'), so an agent knows immediately what the tool does. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_clip_at_playhead by emphasizing 'specific time position,' but it does not explicitly name that alternative, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The obvious sibling get_clip_at_playhead (clip at the playhead) is never mentioned, and there are no exclusions or conditions stated. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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