sequencer-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Report sequence strips', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it, nor does it mention any side effects, output format, or limitations. This is minimal and leaves behavioral expectations unclear.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy or extraneous content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, achieving maximum conciseness for a simple tool.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It fails to specify what the report contains (e.g., names, properties), how results are returned, or any prerequisites. For a simple tool, the description might be minimally adequate, but it lacks sufficient detail to be considered complete.

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 zero parameters, so according to the rubric, the baseline score is 4. There is no parameter information to add beyond what the empty schema shows, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 reports sequence strips in the active scene, using a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('sequence strips in the active scene'). It distinguishes itself from other report tools (e.g., particles-report, physics-report) by targeting the sequencer context, though it lacks details on the nature of the report (e.g., list, summary).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'active scene' but offers no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Users must infer that it's for inspecting sequencer strips without any additional direction.

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