list_arrangement_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any constraints. For a read-only listing, it lacks detail such as whether clips are returned sorted or what happens with empty tracks.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While it omits details, it is not wasted. It earns a 4 for being concise yet clear.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of clip names, positions). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output. The context (track_index) is only vaguely referenced, making the tool insufficiently complete for effective use.

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 add meaning to parameters. It mentions 'for a track', hinting at track_index, but does not explain its type (integer), range, or zero-based indexing. The ctx parameter is not described at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the schema definition.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'clips placed in the arrangement view for a track'. It specifies the view (arrangement) and the scope (per track), distinguishing it from other clip-related tools like get_clip_info or session view operations.

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 implies usage when needing to view arrangement clips for a specific track but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The agent must infer from context that this tool is only for arrangement view clips and not for session clips.

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