getCurrentDocument

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the distinction between source-time and virtual edited-timeline time, lists what each region type returns, describes the settings shape, and warns that the AxcutDocument is the single source of truth whose edits should preserve existing clips and timeline state.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses three sentences to cover return content, usage trigger, and editing caution. It is long and dense, but the detail is largely justified because there is no output schema, and no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: assets, clips, trims, regions, per-region settings, settings, settingsContext, and inactive settings. It also covers calling conditions and the relationship to the source-of-truth document, leaving no major gap for an agent to invoke the tool 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 100%, and the single parameter projectId is documented in the schema with usage guidance. The description does not add syntax, format, or default meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: reading a compact snapshot of the current project. It enumerates the snapshot's major contents—assets, timeline clips and trim ranges, edit regions, settings, settingsContext, and inactive settings—so the agent can distinguish it from sibling tools that read narrower resources. The scope is clear without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call: 'Call this before editing if the snapshot in the system prompt may be stale.' That tells the agent the triggering condition. It does not name alternative read tools or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it at a strong 4 rather than a full 5.

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