cw_get_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a critical trait beyond the schema: the tool depends on CakeScript (T1) and is non-functional in this build. It says nothing about permissions, return shape, or ordering, but the unavailability flag is the highest-value disclosure an agent needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the blocking constraint. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing is telegraphic enough that the meaning of 'T1' is left unexpanded.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unavailability constraint but omits what 'index' means and what a successful call would return. Adequate as a stop-sign, incomplete as a usage guide.

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% and the sole parameter 'index' (integer, minimum 1) is never explained. The description does not say whether index refers to a track index, a clip index, or whether the 1-based constraint matters — it should compensate for the empty schema and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List clips on a track'), which distinguishes it from clip-adjacent siblings like cw_get_notes and cw_list_overlays. The purpose is unambiguous, though the operative fact for an agent is that the tool cannot run in this build.

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 'which this SONAR build cannot dispatch' clause effectively tells the agent never to call it here, which is valuable exclusion guidance. However, it names no alternative for reading clip data, so the agent is left to guess which sibling to use instead.

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