get_full_clip_info

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must fully describe behavioral traits. However, it only lists the data returned without mentioning performance implications, permission requirements, failure modes, or whether the tool is read-only. Important behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get exhaustive information') then lists specific data types. It is efficient but slightly dense with many items; minor improvement possible but good overall.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the scope of what is returned. However, it lacks details on response format, error conditions, and behavioral aspects. It is adequate but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 100% coverage (node_id with clear description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('exhaustive information about a specific clip') and enumerates many specific data categories (effects, source media, markers, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve only subsets of clip data.

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 that this tool should be used when exhaustive clip information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over granular alternatives like get_clip_properties or get_effect_properties. No exclusions or clear context are provided.

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