list_clip_effects

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value by stating that it lists 'properties and current values', providing richer behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations. The description goes beyond just restating the read-only nature.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes: 'List', 'all effects/components', 'on a clip', 'with their properties and current values', and 'Essential for debugging effect issues'. No fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description gives a good sense of what to expect: properties and current values. For a list tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, this is sufficiently complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., array of objects), but it's not critical.

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 only parameter 'node_id' is fully described in the schema with 'Node ID of the clip to inspect'. The tool description mentions 'on a clip', aligning with the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no significant new meaning beyond reinforcing the parameter's purpose.

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 tool lists all effects/components on a clip with properties and current values, and positions it as essential for debugging. The verb 'list' and resource 'effects/components' are specific, and the mention of debugging differentiates it from sibling tools like 'remove_effect' or 'list_available_effects'.

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 explicitly says 'Essential for debugging effect issues', indicating a clear use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other purposes, such as 'list_available_effects' for available effects to apply. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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