transport_get_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify what format the time is returned in (e.g., seconds, timestamp), whether it's real-time or cached, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the returned time value represents (e.g., playback position in seconds), its format, or how it relates to other time-related operations in the system. Given the complexity implied by the many sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'layer' fully documented with its enum values. The description mentions 'specified layer' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the current playback time') and the target resource ('specified layer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling tools that also involve transport or time operations, such as 'transport_get_current' or 'transport_set_time'.

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. With numerous sibling tools involving transport operations, announcements, audio, and presentations, there's no indication of when this specific time retrieval is appropriate versus other time-related tools like 'transport_get_current' or 'get_timeline_status'.

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