current_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by describing return values. However, it does not disclose potential error states (e.g., if no timeline is active) or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 8 words, conveying all necessary information without any filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It enumerates the three key components (bounds, playhead, track counts). With zero parameters, this is nearly complete. Minor gap: no mention of preconditions or error handling, but acceptable for a simple read tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline score is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to provide parameter details, and it correctly omits any.

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 clearly states the tool returns active timeline bounds, playhead, and track counts. It distinguishes from siblings like current_playhead (only playhead) and list_timelines (list of timelines) by combining multiple pieces of timeline state. However, 'bounds' could be more specific (e.g., timecode bounds).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as current_playhead or list_timelines. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., timeline must exist) or when it is appropriate to call.

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