get_clip_volume

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden, and it does disclose that the return includes volume in dB plus keyframes and L/R levels 'if present' — useful signal that fields are optional. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., non-audio clips), permissions, or whether volume is read pre- or post-fader.

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 compact clause, front-loaded with the primary return value before the optional extras. It is terse to the point of being a sentence fragment, but nothing 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 simple 2-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately signals the payload contents. It stops short of clarifying what happens when the clip is not audio or how volume relates to fades/channel volumes, which the sibling tools make relevant.

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%, with both required parameters documented (trackIndex is 0-based A1=0, clipIndex is 0-based referencing get_timeline_clips). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource (audio clip volume) and the unit returned (dB), plus optional extras (keyframes, L/R channel levels). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_track_volume or set_clip_volume, but the clip-vs-track and read-vs-write distinction is inferable from the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_track_volume (track-level) or set_clip_volume (write counterpart). Usage is only implied by the 'get_' prefix; nothing tells the agent about prerequisites or exclusions.

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