select_all_clips

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, and it only states the bare action. It does not clarify the scope of "all clips" (active sequence? all tracks? project panel?), whether the operation replaces or extends the current selection, or whether disabled/hidden clips are included. The "expanded operation" tag hints at a native built-in execution model but adds no concrete behavioral detail.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter operation, though it borders on terse enough to under-specify.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is near-minimal but leaves the critical ambiguity of what "all clips" means unresolved — which sequence, which tracks, and whether disabled clips are included. For such a simple tool the gap is tolerable, but a phrase like "in the active sequence" would close it entirely.

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 zero required parameters, so per the rubric the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema's additionalProperties:true is inconsequential here since the description implies an argument-free select-all call.

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 and resource — "select all clips" — with a clear domain tag (Premiere Pro expanded operation), so an agent knows what the tool does without opening anything else. However, it largely restates the tool's name and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling selection tools like select_clips_by_name, select_clips_in_range, or select_disabled_clips.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many selection siblings in the context signals. No alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria are mentioned; the agent must infer the intended use case entirely from the name.

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