list_component_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (current values and keyframe state), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, error behavior when a component is not found, or how the 7 optional parameters interact for identification.

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 with a clarifying parenthetical and the valuable return-scope clause; no filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does describe the returned shape, but it never explains the identification model implied by zero required parameters (which combination of clip and component identifiers is needed). That gap matters for correct invocation.

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 the schema already explains all seven parameters (clip_name, clip_index, track_type, track_index, clip_node_id, component_name, component_index). The description adds only the notion that component identification is required, not the alternative ways to identify the clip/component. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (list) and resource (parameters/properties of a component/effect on a timeline clip), and clarifies the return content (current values and keyframe state). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_clip_components, read_clip_properties, or list_supported_keyframe_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., 'call list_clip_components first to obtain component_name/index'), and no named alternatives such as read_clip_properties or get_property_keyframes. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'a specific component (effect) on a timeline clip'.

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