diagnose_clip_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so: it declares 'Side effects: none; a read-only sweep', and discloses the edge-case behavior (returns arrangement_supported:false plus an inaccessible entry rather than reporting zero clips). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before trusting the output.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then side effects, examples, and edge cases in a compact block. Every sentence earns its place, though the edge-case sentence is dense enough to slow a quick scan.

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-param read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, both call forms, and a non-obvious return edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the tool correctly 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 compensate, and it does: it explains that a supplied index inspects one track while the no-argument form sweeps the whole Set. That fully specifies the meaning and default behavior of the single optional parameter.

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 (report) and resource (clips reachable by set_clip_color), and ties itself to the sibling tool it supports. An agent can tell it apart from get_clip_info or get_arrangement_clips: this is a diagnostic reachability check, not a data fetch.

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 two examples give clear context for when to pass a track index versus sweep the whole Set, which effectively distinguishes a per-track check from a full-set audit. It doesn't explicitly say 'run this before set_clip_color', but the framing makes the intended workflow evident.

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