Get Full Sequence Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuinely useful bounded-behavior detail beyond annotations: 50 clips by default, pagination.nextOffset follow-through, and markers/transitions capped at 50 per collection. It stops short of describing error/edge behavior.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the most important constraint (bounded output and pagination) before the content list. Parentheticals are used efficiently, though the enumeration is lengthy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and full annotations cover the safety profile. The description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around when to prefer it over similar read siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters richly (clip_limit default/max, track_type enum, offsets, window bounds). The description only reinforces the clip cap and pagination, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (full sequence info) and enumerates the payload contents: settings, tracks with lock/mute/target state, paged clips with positions/effects/speed, markers, transitions, in/out points, work area. This lets an agent recognize it as a comprehensive read tool. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from content-adjacent siblings like get_sequence_structure or get_timeline_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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated contents, and there is a concrete instruction to follow pagination.nextOffset. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g., get_sequence_structure for a lighter read), so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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