get_clip_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'get' and the enumeration of what is included (Motion, Opacity, Volume) make the read-only, bulk-retrieval nature reasonably clear, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior on missing effects, or whether defaults are included when a clip has no effects applied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the enumerated payload parenthetically attached; no filler. Slight terseness ('incl.') is acceptable but borders on fragmentary.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (property names, values, keyframes) and clarifies the effects covered, which is enough for an agent to decide to call it. Missing only edge-case behavior and a pointer to narrower sibling tools.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including 0-based indexing rules and the trackType enum, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no addressing or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Every effect on a clip') and enumerates the payload (property names, values, keyframes), so an agent can tell it apart from narrow siblings like get_effect_property and get_keyframes. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'get' framing and the word 'Every' (a bulk read). There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_effect_property or get_keyframes, nor prerequisites such as an active sequence or valid track/clip indices.

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