read_clip_properties

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 scope of what is returned (Motion, Opacity, Blend, effects), which is useful. But it says nothing about how a clip is targeted when all five parameters are optional, nor about failure behavior if no clip is specified.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the returned property groups listed compactly. No wasted text.

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?

With five parameters and zero required, the description does not explain the clip-selection strategy (e.g. node id vs name+index, or what happens when nothing is supplied), and there is no output schema to absorb return-value detail. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a tool with this many optional selectors.

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 documents clip_name, clip_index, track_type, track_index, and clip_node_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb (Read) and resource (clip components and their parameter values) and enumerates the specific property groups returned (Motion, Opacity, Blend Mode, effects). However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings list_clip_components and list_component_properties, which sound like they cover overlapping ground.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_clip_components, list_component_properties, or get_clip_information, all of which appear adjacent in purpose. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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