find_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, which sequence(s) are searched, whether matching is case-sensitive, or whether there is a result cap — all of which an agent needs before relying on the results.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and filter appear immediately. It could have carried one more clause of guidance at essentially no cost, but nothing present is wasted.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is thin: search scope (active sequence vs. all sequences) and the shape of the returned clips are left entirely unknown. The output schema's absence means the description should have said more about results.

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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, but the description does compensate by defining the match semantics: the string is matched as a substring of the clip name. It still doesn't clarify case sensitivity or escaping, so the gap is only partially closed.

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 (find) plus resource (timeline clips) and the match criterion (name contains text), which is more informative than a bare 'get'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_timeline_clips or find_project_items, so the agent must infer scope from the word 'timeline'.

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 phrase 'whose name contains text' hints that this is a partial-name search, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_timeline_clips, get_clips_at_time, or find_project_items, nor what happens on no match. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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