get_clip_at_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic lookup behavior and does not disclose what happens when no clip exists at the position, how overlapping clips are resolved, or whether the call modifies any state. 'Gets' implies read-only intent, but edge-case behavior is absent.

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 sentence with no filler. The resource being retrieved and the key identifying constraint (specific time position on a track) are front-loaded and immediately 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?

For a simple getter, all required parameters are fully described in the schema, and the basic operation is clear. However, there is no output schema or mention of return values, and the description does not address the no-clip-found case or the closely related sibling get_clip_at_playhead. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds no meaningful information beyond reinforcing the time-position concept, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('gets') and a specific resource ('the clip at a specific time position on a track'). It is distinguishable from the sibling get_clip_at_playhead because it emphasizes an arbitrary time position rather than the playhead, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 get_clip_at_playhead or other timeline query tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or context scenarios are given, so the agent has to infer usage from the name alone.

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