list_strips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return shape (name, type, channel, first/last frame), which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, empty results, or that it is a non-mutating read. For a trivial listing operation this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the return description. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-param read tool with a full output schema, the definition is essentially complete. The return fields are redundantly restated (the output schema already covers them), and there is a minor gap around sequencer context, but nothing critical is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is required or ambiguous for the agent to invoke it.

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 (list) and resource (every strip in the sequencer), which is clearly distinct from the add_*_strip and remove_strip siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or scoping what 'sequencer' means, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an active scene or sequencer), and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to add_image_sequence_strip/remove_strip without being told.

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