Read a video editor project (timeline)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing exactly what the read returns — nested clips with timing fields, effects, masks, text overlays — which tells the agent this is a read-only reconstruction of project state rather than a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by two short actionable sentences. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what ids and fields are available downstream; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly across every major timeline section. For a 2-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 50%: projectAssetId is documented in the schema ("Id from vivid_list_editor_projects"), but raw has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that raw=true returns the full project JSON instead of the summarized timeline, which is the key decision the agent must make.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Load a saved editor project") and immediately enumerates the returned timeline contents: canvas preset, tracks, media library, clips, canvas objects, text overlays. This clearly separates it from vivid_list_editor_projects (listing) and vivid_edit_timeline (mutation).

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?

Routes the agent forward with "Use the ids in vivid_edit_timeline" and offers a clear alternative mode ("Pass raw=true to get the full project JSON instead"). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g. use vivid_list_editor_projects first to discover ids), but the surrounding context makes the reading order obvious.

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