Get a failed project or clip

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: admin-only authorization, refusal behavior for hosted non-admins, a null return when the item is gone (retried or deleted), and the clip/project deduplication rule. These are exactly the behavioral traits 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?

Three compact sentences, no filler. The admin restriction leads, the return payload and the clip-suppression rule follow, and the null case closes it out — front-loaded and dense with information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields, covers the null result, and documents the authorization boundary. For a two-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the kind enum. The description still contributes meaning by tying kind to a behavioral consequence (clip suppression when its parent project failed), which the schema does not convey. Baseline 3 plus that added semantics merits a 4.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (retrieve one failed project or clip) and immediately enumerates what comes back: title, owner email, stage, full recorded reason, and timestamp. That field list plus the admin restriction makes it unmistakable against siblings like list_failures or get_project.

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?

Gives concrete routing advice: a clip whose project also failed is not returned, so retry the project instead. That is an explicit alternative path. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_failures for enumeration, which is the only real gap.

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