get_full_clip_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves 'full clip info'—no mention of read-only status, what data is returned, error conditions, or side effects. The term 'expanded operation' hints at comprehensiveness but leaves the behavior undefined.

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 extremely short—a single sentence—but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and front-loaded essentials that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Even for a no-parameter read operation, more detail would be expected.

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?

The tool appears to be a comprehensive clip-info fetcher, but the description does not state what info is included, how the clip is identified (e.g., selected clip, by name), or what the return format looks like. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to know what it will receive or how to call it effectively.

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 tool has zero defined parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are none). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. However, the input schema has additionalProperties: true, implying it may accept arbitrary properties that are undocumented. The description does not clarify this, but since there are no required parameters, the baseline stands.

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 verb and resource ('get full clip info'), but it is vague about what 'full' means and does not specify which clip is referenced (selected clip, clip at playhead, etc.). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_clip_properties or get_clip_at_position, so the agent cannot confidently select this tool over them.

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 use this tool, what preconditions apply, or how it differs from related tools. The description simply names the operation; no context is given for selecting it over alternatives such as get_full_sequence_info or get_project_item_info.

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