get_effect_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'including current values,' which clarifies the output content. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (list of properties with current values). It does not specify the format or nesting, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable. Safety traits are well-covered by annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'node_id' and 'effect_name' (with an example list). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), the resource ('properties of a specific effect on a clip'), and the included detail ('current values'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_clip_effects' (lists effects, not their properties) and 'set_effect_property' (writes properties).

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 this tool is for reading effect properties, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_clip_effects' or 'get_clip_properties'. No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria are provided, though the context from sibling names helps clarify its niche.

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