get_track_item

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe local read, so the description carries a lighter burden. The enumerated fields (ranges, handles, speed, media, versions, linked items, tags, metadata) confirm this is the "full detail" accessor, but since an output schema exists this mostly restates the return shape rather than adding behavioral context such as error cases or how unresolvable item references behave.

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?

A single compact sentence with the most salient information (this returns full detail) front-loaded. No waste, though the fragmentary style leaves it slightly under-specified rather than over-long.

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 five parameters at zero schema coverage, an output schema that already documents returns, and read-only annotations that cover safety, the description should spend its words on parameter semantics and item/project/sequence resolution. Instead it spends them on enumerating return fields the output schema already provides, leaving the parameters entirely unaddressed.

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?

All five parameters (item, kind, track, project, sequence) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them. Critically, the anyOf[integer, string] type of `item` leaves it ambiguous whether it takes an index, name, or UID, and nothing explains the project/sequence resolution chain or the video/audio `kind` default.

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?

"Full shot details" names the resource conceptually and the field list hints at the retrieve-one semantics, but the description never uses a verb like "get" or states that it fetches a single track item (as opposed to a clip, sequence, or item list). Against siblings like get_clip and list_track_items, an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 on when to call this versus get_clip or list_track_items, and no preconditions (open project, valid sequence/track, item must exist). The only usage signal is implicit in the name.

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