get_playhead

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It tells the units and scope, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it address edge cases like missing active sequence or timecode format. The description adds some value but leaves significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the resource, scope, and units.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description provides essential context (position, scope, units). It doesn't mention potential error conditions (e.g., no active sequence) or timecode format specifics, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context by specifying 'in the active sequence' and 'in seconds and as timecode', which clarifies what the returned value represents, even though no parameters exist.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the current playhead position, specifying the scope ('active sequence') and units ('seconds and timecode'). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the noun-phrase form is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_playhead.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active sequence). The intended use is implied by the name and description, but explicit context is absent.

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