Get clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety and reach are covered elsewhere. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the response (stage, picks, mediaId, postIds), which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about failure modes or what values 'stage' can take.

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 short sentence with the subject front-loaded and no filler. It is economical, though the compressed phrasing ('stage, picks') is slightly jargon-heavy for an agent without domain context.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does cover the returned fields, which is the main burden. It still omits how to obtain a clipId and how this relates to list_clips/get_clip_usage, leaving the workflow context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter clipId is undocumented in both schema and description. 'One clipping job' hints that clipId selects the job, but nothing states where a clipId comes from (presumably list_clips or create_clip) or its format, leaving the parameter gap unresolved.

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 resource (a single clipping job) and enumerates what it carries: stage, picks, and per-clip results (mediaId, postIds). The singular 'One clipping job' implies retrieval and implicitly distinguishes it from list_clips, but no verb is stated and no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_clips, get_clip_usage, or create_clip. The agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch for a known clipId, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing given.

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