get_qe_clip_info

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 restates the operation name and gives no information about side effects, return behavior, errors, requirements, or whether this is a safe read operation. The word 'get' weakly implies retrieval, but the opaque 'qe' and the lack of any behavioral detail leave the agent with nothing actionable.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It spends its one sentence restating the tool name and adding the generic phrase 'expanded operation,' which does not earn its place by clarifying behavior or usage.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, this description had to carry the full explanatory load. It explains neither what 'qe' means, what data is returned, how it differs from related tools, nor any usage context, leaving the agent unable to correctly select or invoke the tool.

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 parameters, so the schema is effectively complete and the description has no parameter meaning it must add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; nothing here detracts from that.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'get qe clip info' is the name itself, and 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is generic context. It does not define what 'qe' means or what clip info is gathered, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like get_full_clip_info, get_clip_properties, or get_project_item_info.

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 versus alternatives. With many similar clip-inspection tools among the siblings, the description provides no selection criteria, no exclusions, and no examples of appropriate use.

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