get_clip_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions only the returned data and parameters but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The phrase 'get' implies safety, but lacking explicit confirmation is a gap.

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 concise: a one-line purpose followed by two succinct parameter definitions. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context, not shown), the description does not need to spell out return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameters. Could be improved by mentioning what happens if the clip or track doesn't exist, but overall adequate for a simple getter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter as '0-based' index. This clarifies the expected indexing beyond the schema's simple labels. However, it does not provide constraints like allowed ranges or error conditions.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Get detailed info about a clip' and lists specific properties (name, length, playing state, gain, pitch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track_info or set_clip_* operations, though it could more explicitly contrast with other getters like get_clip_notes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied: when you need general clip details. Lacks when-not-to-use or references to related tools (e.g., has_clip for checking existence, get_clip_notes for note data).

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