get_project_item_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Details of...' implies a read-only retrieval and the field list tells the agent what information comes back, but nothing is said about behavior for invalid/stale nodeIds or whether the item must be in an open project.

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 clause, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned fields; nothing is wasted. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but that suits a lookup tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned detail categories (path, duration, frame rate, audio/video info, in/out, label, proxy) so the agent can judge relevance before calling. Only the lack of any read-only/error behavior statement keeps it from being complete.

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% and the single nodeId parameter is documented in-schema, including its provenance (from get_project_items / find_project_items). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier format, 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?

States a specific resource (project item) and enumerates the details returned: media path, duration, frame rate, video/audio info, in/out, label, proxy. An agent can tell this apart from sibling readers like get_project_items (list) or get_clip_info (timeline clips), though the description never explicitly names that contrast.

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: you fetch details for a single item once you have its nodeId. The description does not say when to prefer this over get_project_items or get_clip_info, nor any prerequisite beyond the schema note that nodeId comes from get_project_items/find_project_items.

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