get_active_sequence

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of what comes back (tracks, position, settings), but does not say what happens when no sequence is active, whether it errors, or that it is a non-mutating read.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scoping qualifier ('currently active') and the returned-content list are both immediately visible.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about return content, and it partially covers that with the tracks/position/settings list. It stops short of explaining failure modes (no active sequence) or how the payload relates to the sibling get_sequence_settings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list adds minor value by previewing what the call returns.

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 and resource ('Get detailed info about the currently active sequence') and scopes it to the *active* sequence, which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_sequences (list all). It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself, 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'currently active' hints that this is called after set_active_sequence to inspect the open sequence. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (get_sequences, get_sequence_settings, get_timeline_clips) is mentioned.

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