List sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses return content (cue count, active playback), which adds useful context. However, it does not state permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or anything about how limit/offset affect results—gaps that matter for a list tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that efficiently conveys the operation, scope, and return highlights with zero wasted words. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource and key return fields. However, it omits any mention of pagination (limit/offset) or how the 'selected data pool' is determined, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'fields' is documented). The description does not mention 'limit', 'offset', or 'fields' at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters. The word 'all' is also potentially misleading given the presence of limit/offset pagination.

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 ('List') and resource ('sequences') and adds scope ('in the selected data pool') plus returned details ('cue count and whether they have active playback'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gma3_configure_sequence (which modifies) and gma3_cues (which handles cues), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gma3_objects, gma3_cues, or gma3_configure_sequence. The implied context ('selected data pool') gives some setting but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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