get_clip_information

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-oriented behavior indirectly and lists the fields returned (times, in/out points, duration, speed, linked items, source item, effect components), which is genuine behavioral content. However it omits what happens when a clip is not found, how ambiguous clip_name matches are resolved, and any permission/context requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then lists return fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the long enumerated field list is slightly dense.

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, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating what the call returns. With 0 required parameters and identification precedence already handled by the schema, the definition is close to complete, missing only failure/ambiguity behavior.

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 100%, so all five identification parameters (clip_name, clip_index, track_type, track_index, clip_node_id) are already documented in the schema, including nodeId being preferred. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('detailed information about a specific timeline clip in the active sequence'), then enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from a generic getter, but it never contrasts itself with close siblings like read_clip_properties, list_clip_components, or get_selected_timeline_clips, so the agent must guess which read tool applies.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The only implicit context is 'in the active sequence', leaving the agent to infer how it differs from read_clip_properties or get_selected_timeline_clips.

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