List a job's clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the output includes titles, descriptions, download URLs, and interactive rendering in MCP Apps clients. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or read-only behavior, but the operation is inherently a listing.

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?

The description is two sentences, directly states the key output fields, and includes a notable client rendering behavior without unnecessary 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 and the description covers return content, but it omits job_id semantics and any error or prerequisite details. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 only parameter, job_id, has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its meaning, format, or requirements. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate.

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 title 'List' and description 'The clips of a completed job' clearly identify the resource and action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_job_status or recut_clip, so it misses the differentiation expected for a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use list_clips versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as job completion. The description is not misleading but provides no usage context.

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