bi_get_clip_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the trigger-time snapshot (AI/profile/schedule/zones), going beyond what the schema alone provides. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the path-source instruction is placed exactly where it is needed.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what data is returned and where the input comes from. The exact shaped output format is not described, but the listed fields and raw option cover the main use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds extra value by clarifying that 'path' must come from bi_list_alerts and by implying the shaped view behavior of the tool.

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 verb 'get' is paired with a specific resource ('one clip/alert') and a concrete list of returned fields (resolution, duration, AI/profile/schedule/zones active at trigger time). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like bi_list_alerts or bi_get_alert_tracks.

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 explicitly tells the agent to pass the clip 'path' from bi_list_alerts, which is a clear usage instruction tied to a sibling tool. It does not enumerate exclusions or when to prefer an alternative, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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