Multi-scene films

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in the annotations: the listing is scoped to sequences started from this machine, and results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether empty results are possible.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably so terse that the scoping phrase 'started from this computer' is left ambiguous rather than explained.

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 parameterless read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the scope, and the order. It still leaves the agent guessing about what fields a returned sequence contains and whether results are truncated, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's only parameter-like information is the implicit ordering/scoping, which the schema cannot express.

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 concrete resource (multi-scene films/sequences), the scope ('started from this computer'), and the sort order ('newest first'), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with near-neighbours such as axcel_history_list, axcel_library_list, or axcel_sequence_status, which is the main thing keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the listing counterpart to axcel_sequence_start/axcel_sequence_status, and nothing tells it when to prefer this over axcel_history_list or axcel_library_list.

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