item_get_flags

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'Return' are consistent. The description adds minimal behavioral context with 'currently set,' implying a read of current state, but does not discuss error cases, return format, or the influence of track parameters. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential operation without unnecessary words. Every part of the description contributes value.

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 simple read-only getter, the description, combined with a complete input schema and an output schema, provides sufficient context. It specifies the operation and scope, while parameter defaults and return values are handled through the structured metadata.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including defaults for track_type and track_index. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond pointing at the target item, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'all flag colors currently set on a timeline item.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling clip_get_flags (which operates on media pool clips) and other item tools, making the operation and scope 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?

The phrase 'timeline item' provides clear context that this tool is for items on a timeline, implicitly setting it apart from clip_get_flags for media pool clips. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it does not reach the top score.

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