Get Sequence Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the result contains settings like resolution and frame rate, which is useful but not rich behavioral context. Since the output schema exists, return-value details need not be repeated.

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 wasted words. It states the action and the resource immediately and uses a parenthetical only for illustrative examples.

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?

With one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. Its main gap is the lack of disambiguation from sibling read tools like inspect_sequence_av_settings, which an agent might otherwise confuse with this one.

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 is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that sequence_id accepts an ID or name and defaults to the active sequence. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('settings of a sequence') and gives examples of the returned settings (resolution, frame rate). It does not differentiate this tool from overlapping read siblings such as inspect_sequence_av_settings or get_full_sequence_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The only usage hint ('Uses active sequence if omitted') is inherited from the input schema, not the description itself.

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