resolve_get_current_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Get') and enumerates the returned data, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no active project, or what happens if no timeline is current. The return-value mention is useful but the safety/state implications are left implicit.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return content is summarized in a compact list. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the key returned fields, and an output schema exists for exact return structure. It does not mention error cases or prerequisite state (e.g., an open project), but these are minor gaps for a simple query tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The input schema is empty and coverage is 100%, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description appropriately focuses on the operation rather than adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the current timeline'), and names concrete return fields (name, timecode, track counts, start/end frames). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like resolve_list_timelines.

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 intended use is reasonably implied: call this when you need details about the currently active timeline. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related tools such as list_timelines or get_playhead, leaving much to inference.

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