get-layer-clip-frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data returned but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, error behavior, or how it handles missing layers or ambiguous layer selection between layerName and layerIndex.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous words. Every part adds value.

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 relatively simple getter with no output schema, the description names the key returned values (clip frames, source frame range, duration in frames), which gives the agent a solid understanding of output. However, it omits any detail about return format or edge-case behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters beyond mentioning 'layer,' so it does not exceed the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource and outputs: a layer's clip start/end frames, source frame range, and duration in frames. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect-layer, which are more general.

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 purpose implies when to use it—when you need frame-range information for a layer—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on choosing this over inspect-layer or other layer inspection tools, though the scope is inferable.

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