Get clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that by promising 'Returns the clip object' and explaining that the response includes both 'own' and 'effective' values with their source (clip|project|default). That inheritance behavior is the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the usage hint is short and actionable. The opening sentence is a long enumeration of return fields that borders on run-on, but each item tells the agent something exists in the response, so little of it is wasted.

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's enumeration of returned fields and the own/effective/from resolution rules are essential and present. It also explains the render-status polling pattern. What is missing is minor (e.g., what happens with an invalid or stale id).

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a description ('Clip id (from get_project or search_clips)'). The description adds nothing about the id format, so the schema does the work and the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Everything about one clip') and then enumerates exactly what that means (text, bounds, scores, emphasis, layers, render diagnostics, links). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_project ('lists all clips in brief'), so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Names a concrete alternative (get_project for the brief list) and gives an explicit operational trigger: 'poll this after an edit to see the render finish (status done).' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not cover when to prefer get_clip_captions or search_clips instead.

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