get_clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds detail about return field names and format (e.g., export_quality values 720p/1080p), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or error handling. Extra context is minor.

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 lists all return fields efficiently, with the purpose right at the start. No repetitive or extraneous content. Slightly dense due to the long list, but still well-structured for quick scanning.

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's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the purpose and return fields adequately. It specifies certain field formats (export_quality values) which adds value. Some missing context about potential errors or the requirement that the clip exist, but overall sufficient.

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 description for clip_id is complete ('The unique clip ID from a project's clips array') and coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter semantics because the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a JSON object with full clip details, listing specific fields. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'clip details' indicate a retrieval operation. Sibling tools like 'generate_clips' (creation) and 'list_projects' (listing) are distinct, so this tool is unambiguously for fetching a single clip's details.

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 usage when needing full details of a specific clip, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing clips) or suggest alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist) or context for selection among siblings.

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