list_sequence_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey what the tool does and any side effects. It states it lists tracks and their properties, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether it includes hidden tracks, the order of tracks, or if it requires the sequence to be loaded. The absence of annotations raises the burden, and the description only partially meets it.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous details. It is front-loaded with the main action and object, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers its purpose adequately. It does not describe the return structure, but since no output schema exists, the description could mention that it returns a list of tracks with properties and clips, which it does. For a list operation, this is sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'sequenceId' parameter fully explained (GUID, source fields, and usage context). The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but given complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not harm by omitting redundant information.

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 lists all video and audio tracks in a specific sequence and includes their properties and clips. It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('video and audio tracks'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sequences (which lists sequences) and get_track_info (which likely targets a single track).

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?

While the description implies use when you need track-level details for a specific sequence, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_sequence_structure or get_timeline_summary. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit alternative guidance, which is common among the sibling tools.

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