get_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing confirms that, and it says nothing about whether it errors with no open project, how results are ordered, or whether there is a size limit — and 'with their properties' gives no sense of what is actually returned.

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 filler. Every clause (list, all, current project, properties) carries information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is minimally sufficient — it tells the agent what it gets at a high level. But 'their properties' is vague, and without annotations or an output schema the agent must call it to learn the return shape.

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 no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline of 4 applies. The description at least confirms the implicit scope argument ('current project'), which is useful given no parameter exposes it.

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 (list) and resource (sequences) and scopes it to the current project, so the agent knows it enumerates rather than fetches one sequence. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as get_active_sequence or get_sequence_settings.

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 agent can infer this is the enumeration call versus the singular get_active_sequence, but the description never states when to pick it over those siblings or whether any preconditions exist (e.g., a project must be open).

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