clip_get_flags

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds scope context ('all' and 'currently set'). However, it does not disclose return format, empty-result behavior, or error handling for nonexistent clips. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the output schema likely handles return shape, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose and scope, making it an appropriately minimal description for a simple getter tool.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. Minor gaps remain around flag-color semantics and edge cases (e.g., no flags set), but these are partially covered by the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (clip_name: 'Name of the clip.'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with an explicit resource ('all flag colors currently set on a clip'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like clip_add_flag/clip_clear_flags (mutations) and clip_get_color (clip color vs. flag colors), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only getter framing, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. For a simple single-parameter getter, the context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative direction.

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