get_sequence_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only.' mostly restates structured data rather than adding context. The description does disclose the recursive nesting of child_folders, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing sequence or how aliased inputs are resolved.

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 sentences, zero filler; the purpose and scope lead and the return contract follows. Every clause carries information, and the dense return-shape notation is compact rather than verbose.

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 present, the description compensates by spelling out the exact return structure (sequence_path, root_folder_count, recursive folders with child_tracks and child_bindings). It is complete enough to call and consume correctly, though it omits failure behavior for an invalid or missing sequence.

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 two parameters (sequence_path and its alias sequence_name) are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no clarification of the alias relationship or of accepted path formats beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Read the Sequencer folder tree of a Level Sequence') and pins the scope precisely ('root folders, recursively, with child tracks + bindings'). This cleanly separates it from siblings such as get_sequence_tracks, get_sequence_bindings, and add_sequence_folder/remove_sequence_folder without needing to open 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?

The stated scope implies when this is useful (you need the folder hierarchy and what it contains), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_sequence_tracks or get_sequence_bindings for flatter queries. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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