get_sequence_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb "Get" plus the enumerated fields make clear this is a non-mutating read that returns technical parameters, which covers the main behavioral risk for a zero-parameter tool. However, nothing is said about what happens if there is no active sequence or how complete the returned settings are ("etc." leaves scope ambiguous).

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 no padding. The parenthetical field list adds concrete value rather than filler, and the key noun phrase ("settings of the active sequence") comes 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of sketching the return contents, which is the main thing an agent needs for a zero-param read tool. The trailing "etc." and the absence of any note about the no-active-sequence case are the only gaps, and both are minor.

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 field list is a bonus aimed at the return value rather than at inputs.

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 settings of the active sequence") and enumerates the returned fields (frame rate, resolution, pixel aspect ratio, field type), which clearly separates it from get_sequences and get_active_sequence. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from the 'settings' framing.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs sequence technical parameters. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_active_sequence, get_sequences, or get_project_info, nor any note about behavior when no sequence is active.

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