clip_get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the return format (key-value pairs) and scope (all metadata fields). This goes beyond the minimal annotation by clarifying what the agent can expect, without needing to cover safety since annotations handle that.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 one simple parameter, full schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description is fully adequate. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema covers them.

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% with clip_name described as 'Name of the clip to inspect.' The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' with resource 'clip' and clear scope 'all metadata fields as key-value pairs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clip_get_name and clip_get_properties, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 all metadata fields are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like clip_get_properties or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is clear enough for basic selection, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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