get_timeline_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld), so the added value is the operational detail: no Sequencer window required, nothing mutated, and the deterministic first-match resolution under /Game. It also clarifies the semantics of master_track_count relative to get_sequence_tracks, which is beyond any structured field.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the body then lists the return fields in prose and immediately repeats them in a 'Returns: {...}' JSON block, which is redundant. The master_track_count sentence is useful, but the duplicated field enumeration costs space without adding meaning.

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 exists, so the description carries the full burden of documenting returns and does so thoroughly with names and units (ticks, seconds, numerator/denominator). Combined with the safety annotations and the resolution rule, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only the absence of error/not-found behavior is a minor gap.

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% for the single parameter, and the description's first-match rule largely restates the schema's own note ('the first match under /Game is used'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 ('Reads the timeline summary of a Level Sequence asset') plus the resolution scope (first asset-name match under /Game). It is clearly an aggregate summary, which implicitly separates it from the granular getter siblings, but it never names an alternative to route against (e.g. get_sequence_duration, get_sequence_tracks).

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?

Offers one usage-relevant context ('needs no open Sequencer and changes nothing'), which tells the agent it can be called standalone. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-a-sibling guidance and no exclusions, despite a crowded family of sequence getters to disambiguate against.

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