get_level_sequence_status_runtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the player must be 'active' and enumerates the response fields, but it does not cover error handling or what happens with an invalid/stale player_key.

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 definition is front-loaded with a single clear sentence, followed by a returns list. The returns list is longer than typical prose but is justified because no output schema exists, so every field 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status, is_playing, is_paused, is_reversed, current_time, duration, frame_rate, playback_progress), which fully informs the agent of the shape. Annotations cover safety, and the lone parameter is documented. Only minor edge-case behavior (invalid key) is unaddressed.

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% – the single player_key parameter is documented in the schema as 'Player key returned from play_level_sequence_runtime'. The description adds no further semantics about the parameter, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the current playback status of an active Level Sequence player'. It clearly distinguishes this read-only status tool from siblings like play_level_sequence_runtime, pause_level_sequence_runtime, and set_level_sequence_time_runtime.

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 implied – call it to inspect an active player's playback state, keyed by a player_key obtained from play_level_sequence_runtime. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., set_level_sequence_time_runtime, stop_level_sequence_runtime) and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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