get_segment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose input addressing formats and what 'wordtimes' yields, and read-only behavior is implied by 'Detail', but it says nothing about output size, cost, or any constraints on ranges.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then parameter help; every clause carries information, with no preamble or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description fills the format gaps the bare schema leaves. Remaining gaps are minor (video_id semantics, what an omitted end defaults to), so it is nearly complete for a 4-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: start/end are explained as seconds or shot ids with a concrete example ('start="s3"'), and valid fields values are enumerated with wordtimes' meaning given. Only video_id and the default end behavior remain unexplained.

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 concrete operation ('Detail for one range') on a named resource (a video range/segment), with the start/end addressing scheme spelled out. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like peek or query, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Detail for one range' suggests fetching full detail for exactly one span, and 'for precise cuts' hints at the wordtimes use case. No when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool is named, so the agent still has to guess versus peek/query/overview.

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