inspect_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior fully. It states 'Read structure,' implying read-only, but does not explicitly declare no side effects or discuss error conditions (e.g., invalid path, unloaded asset). Behavior is partially transparent but lacks completeness.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action and output components. No redundant words, and the verb 'Read' is first.

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 simple, one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output. However, it omits context like expected error handling, whether the asset must be loaded, or if the output is hierarchical – information that would be helpful for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description. The tool's description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond listing output fields, which is not required given high schema coverage.

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 tool reads the structure of a Level Sequence asset and lists specific components (tracks, sections, bindings, frame rate, playback range). It distinguishes from generic inspect_asset and other sequence tools, though a more explicit differentiation from sibling inspect_* tools would strengthen clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_asset or other sequence-focused tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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