resolve_get_playhead

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what happens if no timeline is loaded, whether the timecode format is standard (e.g., HH:MM:SS:FF), or if any side effects exist. The output schema exists but the description itself offers no explicit behavioral guarantees.

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?

A single sentence that is completely front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does without any filler. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for a simple getter 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, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly note that it refers to the current playhead on the current timeline, but that is strongly implied by sibling tools and the tool's name. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate – the description accurately labels the purpose and there is nothing missing regarding parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('playhead'), and detail ('timecode position'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_set_playhead or resolve_add_marker_at_playhead, which modify or add at the playhead rather than merely read its position.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the read-only nature or conditions under which it is appropriate, such as requiring an open project and current timeline. The presence of siblings like set_playhead implies use cases but they are not articulated.

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