clip_metadata_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation, implying a non-destructive action, but it does not explain identifier precedence, behavior when no parameters are supplied, or error handling. This is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential parameter and usage details, making it efficient but incomplete.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is insufficient on its own because it does not explain how to select a clip via the three optional parameters. With no annotations and no parameter guidance, an agent lacks enough context to call the tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not mention path, media_id, or clip_name at all. It provides no guidance on how to identify the clip or whether at least one of these optional parameters is required, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Read', and clearly identifies the resource: metadata for a media pool clip. The phrase 'built-in and third-party metadata' helps differentiate it from sibling tools like markers_query and clip_set_color, though no alternative tool is explicitly named.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as markers_query, inspect, or type_registry_get. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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