timeline_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining the 'detail' parameter's impact on output length and the 'response_format' parameter for token efficiency, which helps the agent understand performance implications. However, it does not describe the format of the state (e.g., fields returned, structure), nor does it mention any side effects or read-only nature explicitly. For a read tool, this is a moderate gap, but the parameter explanation provides some transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose statement. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second explains the 'detail' parameter, and the third explains the 'response_format'. There is no fluff. It could benefit from a clearer full sentence for purpose, but given the brevity, it is well-structured and efficient.

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, two optional params), the description is mostly adequate. It covers the parameters' meanings and gives a hint about output length control, which is useful. However, it does not specify what the timeline state includes (e.g., time, frame, playing, paused), nor does it indicate whether the output is a full object or a scalar. For an agent needing to interpret the response, this is a notable gap. Thus, it is not fully complete for complex use cases, but it's acceptable for basic usage.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain both parameters. It does this well: it describes the 'detail' parameter with three explicit values (full, summary, minimal) and their effects, and the 'response_format' parameter with two formats (yaml, json) and a note that yaml is token-cheap. This provides clear semantic meaning beyond the schema, which only gives types and defaults. The coverage is complete for both parameters, so a 4 is justified.

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 'Current timeline / playback state,' which is a clear enough purpose at a high level. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like timeline_set, timeline_play, or timeline_pause, but the phrase 'current state' implies a read operation versus a set or control action. It relies on the name and a short phrase rather than a full sentence, making it minimal but not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this is for reading state, nor does it mention when to use timeline_set or timeline_play instead. The context is implied by the name and the word 'current,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusions, which falls short of adequate guidance.

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