select_clips_in_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether the selection replaces the current selection or adds to it, nor does it clarify if the tool is idempotent, whether it only works on an active sequence, or what criteria define overlap (partial vs. full). This leaves critical behavioral ambiguity.

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 of 10 words, front-loading the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose; no superfluous information.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality but misses important context such as whether clips are selected in the timeline UI, how overlap is defined, and the effect on existing selection. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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%, with all four parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (select), the resource (clips), the condition (overlap a time range), and the context (active sequence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_clips_by_color or select_clips_by_name, providing a unique and unambiguous purpose.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative selection methods. It does not specify whether selection replaces or appends, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit usage context is given.

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