get_active_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets information' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose what specific information is returned, whether it requires an active sequence to exist, or any error conditions. It's a simple read operation, but the description is minimal and doesn't add much behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose clearly with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't specify what 'information' is returned, which could be important for an agent to know if it needs specific sequence details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more explicit about the type of information (e.g., name, duration, settings). It's complete enough for a basic getter but lacks detail.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't add any parameter-related information, which is fine. It correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get information about the currently active sequence. It uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('active sequence'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_sequence_structure or get_full_sequence_info, which might also provide sequence information, so it loses a point for not differentiating.

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?

The description implies usage when you need information about the active sequence, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sequence_structure or get_full_sequence_info. There is no mention of when not to use it or what specific information it returns compared to other sequence-related tools.

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