playlist_list_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' implies read-only and the track-filtering behavior is stated, but the description does not specify return structure, ordering, or behavior when no clips exist. This is a simple list operation with no destructive side effects, so the omission is moderate.

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 with no filler. The core behavior comes first, and the optional filter is parenthesized as a secondary detail.

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?

The tool is simple—one optional parameter and no output schema—and the description covers its purpose and the parameter's effect. It could be slightly stronger with a hint of what information is returned per clip, but nothing required to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the track parameter. It does so by stating that it optionally filters to one track, adding meaning beyond the bare integer/null schema. It leaves the exact track-identifier convention unstated but usable.

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 names the operation ('List'), the resource ('clips in the playlist'), and the optional track filter. It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like playlist_list_markers and playlist_delete_clip.

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 main use case—retrieve clips, optionally scoped to a track—is clearly stated. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives, but there is no close sibling for listing clips, and the optional-filter phrasing tells when the track parameter should be used.

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