get_clips_by_track_id

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. It only states the basic action ('get all clip') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, return format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate and leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 ('get all clip by track id'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified and contains grammatical errors ('clip' vs. 'clips'), reducing clarity. While front-loaded, it lacks the substance needed to be truly helpful, making this brevity more of a deficiency than a virtue.

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 complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clips' are, what data is returned, or how this tool fits with siblings. For a retrieval tool in a music/audio context with multiple related tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('track_id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'track id' but adds no meaning beyond what's implied by the parameter name—it doesn't explain what a track ID is, its format, valid values, or how it relates to clips. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'get all clip by track id' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minor grammatical issues. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'clip' but lacks precision about what 'clip' means in this context (audio clips, MIDI clips, etc.) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_clip_info_by_id' or 'get_detail_clip'. The purpose is vague rather than specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for retrieving clip information (e.g., 'get_clip_info_by_id', 'get_detail_clip', 'get_all_notes_by_clipid'), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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