get_linked_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds that the tool operates 'in the sequence' and returns clips linked to the same source. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error handling, permission requirements, or impact on the project state beyond what annotations imply.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly communicates the tool's function efficiently.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of clip IDs or objects) and edge cases (e.g., no linked clips, invalid node_id). This leaves the agent without full context for robust usage.

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 coverage is 100% (node_id is documented in schema). The description does not add any further meaning to the parameter; it simply restates the use case. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 all clips) and the condition (linked to same source as a given clip). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_clip_links, but does not explicitly mention that it returns clips rather than links.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_clip_links). There is no context about prerequisites, preference over other tools, or scenarios where it should not be used.

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