get_level_sequences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return payload shape, including total_count, max_results and a truncated flag, which tells the agent that results may be capped and how to detect it — a genuinely useful behavioral detail. It could still say what triggers truncation or the scope default, but this is solid added context.

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?

Two compact lines: the purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return-shape line is a dense type expression with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though the return line is notation rather than prose.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with only two optional parameters, this is sufficient: annotations supply the safety profile, the schema fully documents the inputs, and the description covers the return shape in lieu of an output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 both max_results (range and default 1000) and package_path (default /Game) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats that filtering by package path is optional and adds no syntax or unit detail. Baseline 3 is correct where the schema carries the parameters.

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: 'List all Level Sequences in the project.' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_level_sequence or delete_level_sequence. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling such as get_sequence_tracks or get_sequence_folders, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The only guidance offered is that results are 'optionally filtered by package path,' which is a restatement of the optional parameter rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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