get_total_clip_count

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 that it gets a count, without indicating read-only status, required context, potential errors, or what exactly is counted. For a simple getter, this is minimal but insufficiently transparent.

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 sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is merely a restatement of the name without any additional structure or useful detail. It is not padded, but it lacks the purposeful structure that would earn a higher score.

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 description is ambiguous about the scope of 'total clip count'—it does not specify whether it counts clips in the active sequence, the entire project, or elsewhere. With no output schema or annotations, this ambiguity makes the tool hard to use correctly without external knowledge. The description is incomplete for a tool that clearly needs context.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty, aligning with the description. No additional param semantics are required.

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 'get total clip count', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It conveys the operation and resource, so it is not a pure tautology, but it adds no context that distinguishes it from other getter tools like get_sequence_count or get_selected_clips. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is generic and does not clarify scope.

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 'total' refers to (project, sequence, or selection), or any exclusions relative to sibling tools. The description provides no context for choosing this over alternatives.

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