get_clip_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key traits: 'Side effects: none' establishes it as a safe read, and the edge case documents the WRONG_TYPE failure for return/master tracks. It stops short of describing return format or ordering, which would complete the picture.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a labeled side-effects note, a concrete example, and an edge-case warning. Every sentence is short and load-bearing, with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information. It covers purpose, safety, example, and one error case, but says nothing about what the returned slot/clip metadata contains or its ordering, leaving an agent guessing about the response shape for a listing tool.

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% and the lone parameter (track_index) has no schema description, so the description must compensate. The example 'get_clip_summary(0)' combined with 'lists the first track's slots' communicates that the argument is a zero-based track index, which is real semantic value beyond the bare integer type.

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 (List) plus the resources (Session clip slots and clip metadata) and scope ('for one track'), so an agent can tell it enumerates clips on a track rather than returning a single clip. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_clip_info, get_clip_notes, or get_track_list, which keeps it just short of 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?

The example ('get_clip_summary(0) lists the first track's slots') implies intended usage and the edge case ('return and master tracks produce WRONG_TYPE') gives a partial when-not-to-use constraint. However, no sibling alternative is named for retrieving clip details versus a slot listing, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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