list_strips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read', indicating a non-mutating operation, and adds behavioral detail about liveness ('live') and compactness ('compact'). It also describes the effect of include_status. It doesn't fully describe return format or pagination, but for a read-only listing tool it discloses the essential traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and a single follow-up for the optional flag. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned — strip IDs and scribble-strip names, plus optionally fader, mute, pan. It implies the filterable kinds via schema but doesn't restate. There are no obvious missing inputs or side effects for a read-only list operation, though a note on output shape would make it 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 coverage is 50%: kinds is well described in the schema, but include_status is only a bare boolean. The description compensates by saying 'Set include_status to also read fader, mute, and pan,' giving meaning to an otherwise opaque parameter. It does not need to restate kinds because the schema already does.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a compact live list of strip IDs and scribble-strip names.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the mutation-oriented siblings like set_fader and adjust_fader by framing this as a read-only listing operation, and it enumerates what is returned.

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 description gives clear usage context: it is a read-only listing tool, and it tells the agent when to include status via the include_status parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_strip_status or find_strip_by_name or state when not to use them, but the intended usage is clear.

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