get_effect_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Read" weakly implies a non-mutating call, but there is no mention of what is returned (current value only, or keyframes/min-max too), what happens when the effect or property name doesn't match, or whether index-based vs name-based lookup behaves differently.

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?

Four words, front-loaded and waste-free, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The brevity leaves obvious gaps that a single additional sentence could close, so it earns a middling score rather than top marks.

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?

A five-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain the return shape and the effect-property lookup model; it explains neither. An agent must infer entirely from the schema and sibling names what a successful result looks like.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including the string-or-index union for 'effect' and 'property' and the 0-based conventions. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

"Read one effect property" gives a verb and a resource, but the resource is underspecified: it never says the property lives on a clip effect, nor that the read is scoped by track/clip. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_clip_effects (which also exposes property data) or get_clip_transform.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement that get_clip_effects should be called first to enumerate effects/properties, no exclusion against get_clip_transform or get_keyframes. The schema's param descriptions hint at get_clip_effects as a prerequisite, but the description itself offers nothing.

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