CrabCut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid clip IDs), or response format. The mention of 'export status and URLs' hints at behavior but lacks depth, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and specifies key outputs ('export status and URLs') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, errors), output structure, and usage context. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'clip_id' documented as 'The clip ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing context. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('clip'), specifying what details are retrieved ('export status and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'download_clip' by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than file download. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential read operations like 'list_projects' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid clip ID), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk operations), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'list_projects' for overviews versus detailed views. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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