list_clip_components

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It usefully enumerates what kinds of components are returned (intrinsic vs applied effects), adding content context. However it says nothing about whether it is read-only, requires a loaded sequence/clip, or what happens when no clip matches the optional filters.

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 front-loaded sentence that defines the resource immediately. Efficient and free of padding, though the parenthetical slightly crowds the core statement.

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 should ideally convey the return shape, which it only partly does by naming component categories. With five all-optional selector parameters and no annotations, important context (how to target a clip, read-only nature) is left unstated.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it does not explain that all five parameters are optional and how they combine to select a clip.

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 states a clear verb (List) and resource (components on a timeline clip) and even parenthetically defines what a component is (intrinsic effects like Opacity, Motion, Volume, plus applied effects). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_clip_information, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_component_properties or list_component_properties.

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 context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With siblings like get_clip_information, read_clip_properties, and list_component_properties, an agent gets no signal on which to pick for what need.

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