sequence.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. The description adds 'Risk: read' and 'maturity: L3', which are additional context, but it does not disclose more about the tool's behavior, such as potential failure modes, authorization nuances, or what the output represents. With annotations covering the core safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 short and to the point, with one sentence that includes the command name, risk level, and reminder of requirements. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the key information about being a read operation and the existence of per-request checks. No verbose or redundant language is present.

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 that the tool has an output schema and the parameters are all standard harness infrastructure, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. The main missing piece is a clear statement of what 'inspect' returns (e.g., sequence details), but the output schema likely provides that. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand it's a safe, read-only inspection command that requires standard request checks.

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 high (75%), and the parameters are all harness infrastructure fields (e.g., `_requestId`, `_authorization`, `_transactionId`, `_expectedSceneRevision`) with their own schema descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but given the coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a read operation (`sequence.inspect`) and states that it is a read risk, but it does not specify what data is inspected or what the tool actually does (e.g., returns sequence details, lists strips, etc.). It is distinguishable from siblings like `blender_sequence_add` by the name, but a clear purpose beyond 'inspect' is missing.

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 mentions that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, giving some context that this is a controlled read operation. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus other sequence-related tools (e.g., `blender_sequence_inspect` vs `blender_compositor_inspect` or `blender_scene_inspect`), nor does it mention any prerequisites or session requirements explicitly.

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