ti_get_sequence_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuine behavioral context beyond that by explaining the semantic meaning of the returned seqUpdate values and their role as input to ti_get_updates, which matters because there is no output schema; it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or auth.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads what the endpoint returns and what it is for, the second covers the optional date mode. The 'GET /api/v2/sequence_list' prefix is a slight implementation detail but anchors the resource without costing the reader anything.

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, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the shape and meaning of the return value and the backfill workflow it enables. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for dates before the feed begins or the expected volume of results for large collection sets.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to date beyond 'YYYY-MM-DD; omit for the current values' by explaining that it yields the seqUpdate each collection stood at on that day and enables backfilling from an arbitrary start point. The collection and apply_hunting_rules parameters are left entirely to 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?

Names a specific resource and the exact data returned ('the current seqUpdate of every collection'), and frames it as 'the starting points for ti_get_updates', which immediately separates it from sibling tools like ti_get_updates or ti_get_collection without opening a 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?

Explicitly states when to supply date (to backfill from a chosen day rather than from the beginning of the feed) and when to omit it (current values), which resolves the main usage decision. It stops short of explicit exclusions against the other siblings (e.g. ti_get_collection, ti_list_collections), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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