media_pool_get_clips

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety. The description adds behavioral context: 'current Media Pool folder' and 'pagination', which are important for the agent to know it must be in the right folder and can page through results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence of 10 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently communicates the only two additional pieces of context (current folder, pagination). No wasted words.

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 list operation, the description covers the essential context: what is listed (clips), where (current Media Pool folder), and how (pagination). Annotations declare safety, the output schema documents return values, and the parameter schema fully explains pagination controls, so nothing critical 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?

Input schema covers both parameters (limit and offset) with detailed descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description only mentions 'pagination' generically, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clips'), and clearly scopes to 'current Media Pool folder' with pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_pool_get_subfolders or clip_get_name, which operate on different resources or aspects.

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 context is clear: this tool lists clips in the current Media Pool folder, with pagination. It implicitly indicates when to use it (when you need clips in the current folder) and does not conflict with alternatives, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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