ue_sequence_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool opens/closes the Sequencer editor and does not modify the asset, using 'I tool scrivono sull'asset e basta' to set expectations. This is a transparent disclosure of the tool's effect, though it omits details like error handling or prerequisites.

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 description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, the close parameter, and the broader context of why the tool exists. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavior. It explains that the tool is for viewing results of asset-modifying tools and can also close the editor. It could be more complete by specifying that the sequence must already exist, but for the context, this is sufficient.

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?

The description explains the 'close' parameter (close=True closes the editor) but offers no explicit meaning for 'sequence_path', aside from the tool name implying it's the path to the sequence. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more by specifying the expected path format (e.g., full asset path vs. asset name), leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool opens a sequence in the Sequencer editor and can also close it with close=True. It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by emphasizing that it is for visualizing assets that other tools modify, rather than modifying the asset itself.

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 description explains when to use this tool: 'I tool scrivono sull'asset e basta: questo è il modo di vedere il risultato senza cercare l'asset a mano nel Content Browser.' This gives a clear usage context—use this after making changes with other tools to view the result in the editor. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the context makes the use case clear.

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