get_full_sequence_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It provides no behavioral context beyond 'expanded operation' – unclear whether this is a read operation, whether it returns a large payload, whether it requires an active sequence, or whether it has performance implications. The term 'expanded' suggests more detail than a standard query but that is not explained.

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 very short (one sentence) but it's not efficient because it wastes words: 'expanded operation' is jargon and doesn't add meaning. It is front-loaded but the single sentence is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It's not bloated, but it also doesn't earn its place by conveying useful information beyond the name.

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 complexity of the suite (many sibling aggregation tools), this description is incomplete. It doesn't mention what 'full' encompasses, whether it returns tracks, clips, markers, settings, or project-level data. With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate, and it doesn't. The agent cannot predict the tool's behavior or output shape.

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 has 0 parameters, so the description has little to add. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. However, the description doesn't clarify any hidden context like whether it operates on the active sequence or requires prior setup. Still, with no parameters, the schema is complete; the description adds nothing but also doesn't need to.

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 says 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get full sequence info.' It identifies the verb and resource (get sequence info) but the purpose is vague and doesn't differentiate this from the many sibling tools like get_sequence_structure, get_sequence_settings, get_timeline_summary, get_full_project_overview, etc. It's clear it's a 'get' operation but not what specific 'full sequence info' includes or how it differs from similar tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that aggregate sequence data (get_sequence_structure, get_timeline_summary), but the description provides no exclusions or comparisons. The word 'expanded' hints at 'full' vs a basic version but it's not explicit.

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