katto_get_clips

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the response shape, score-based ranking, the hd=true/false distinction for render readiness, and the empty-until-ready behavior. 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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose ('Read-only convenience: the clips of a job...') and each sentence carries essential information: output fields, ranking, HD semantics, and the empty-until-ready state. No 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines what is returned, how it is ordered, what hd means, and when the response is empty. The annotations cover the safety profile, and no critical call-time behavior is missing for the given complexity.

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 100%: the single 'id' parameter is already described as 'Job id from katto_create_clip_job.' The description only reinforces that this is a job's clips without adding new parameter-specific syntax or format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('the clips of a job'), and goes further by enumerating the exact returned fields and their ordering ('ranked by score'). This makes it easy to distinguish from job-status, transcript, or listing tools even without reading the schema.

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 gives clear context: it is a read-only convenience for retrieving the clips of a job, and it warns that results are 'Empty until the first clip is ready,' which signals when the tool becomes useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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