get_sequence_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Gets') but does not disclose details such as what the returned settings structure looks like, error handling for invalid sequence IDs, or whether it returns all settings versus a subset. The phrase 'etc.' is vague but not misleading, so this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. Every word is useful; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and gives a hint of what 'settings' includes (resolution, framerate). However, the 'etc.' could be more explicit given no output schema exists, and there is no mention of what exactly is returned, so a small gap remains.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (sequenceId) with 100% coverage. The description only reinforces that the tool operates on a sequence, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Gets' and clearly identifies the resource as 'settings for a sequence', with concrete examples (resolution, framerate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_sequence_settings (which sets) and get_sequence_structure (which retrieves structure, not settings).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sequence_structure or get_full_sequence_info. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with related getters, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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