get_audio_section_properties

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit by adding real semantics: looping reflects IsRepeating(), volume/pitch are sampled at frame 0, and the key-count fields describe animated-channel keys. 'Pure reader (no transaction/save)' largely restates the annotation but adds the save caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by focused behavioral notes and an explicit Returns block. Every sentence carries information; the Returns enumeration is long but substitutes for a missing output schema, so it earns its space.

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 embedded Returns block fully documents the response shape and field types, and the params are covered at 100% by the schema. For a read tool of this complexity, nothing needed for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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%, so the schema already documents section_index, sequence_name, and sequence_path, and the baseline is 3. The description notes the root-audio-track + section_index resolution scheme, which adds a little meaning, but no per-parameter syntax or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 verb (Read) and resource (playback properties of a UMovieSceneAudioSection), names the exact engine class, and differentiates itself from the write counterpart set_audio_section_properties. An agent can tell it apart from the many sibling getters without opening any schema.

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?

It establishes context by tying resolution to set_audio_section_properties (root audio track + section_index), which implicitly routes the agent between the read and write tool. It does not give an explicit when-not-to-use or name other alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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