get_clip_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the operation is a read ('Get') and specifies the metadata returned, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or error behavior. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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, directly listing the metadata fields, with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and the metadata fields returned. It does not mention prerequisites like clip existence or loading, but that is likely implied by the system's clip management 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 schema has one parameter (clip_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description compensates somewhat by stating 'for one clip', implying that clip_id identifies the clip of interest, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter format or provide examples. Since the parameter is self-evident from its name and the tool's purpose, a modest score is warranted.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full metadata for one clip'), listing specific metadata fields (duration, size, fps, audio, history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clips, which likely lists clip identifiers rather than metadata.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_clips. However, the purpose is clear enough that usage is implied: when you need detailed metadata for a single clip, call this tool. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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