list_sequence_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists tracks with properties and clips, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical details like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large sequences (e.g., pagination), error conditions, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Lists all video and audio tracks'), where ('in a specific sequence'), and what details are included ('with their properties and clips'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of listing tracks with properties and clips, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of track data, clip details), potential limitations (e.g., performance with many tracks), or error handling. For a tool that likely returns rich data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sequenceId' documented as 'The ID of the sequence to list tracks for.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists all video and audio tracks in a specific sequence with their properties and clips.' It specifies the verb ('Lists'), resource ('video and audio tracks'), and scope ('in a specific sequence'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sequences' or 'list_project_items', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a sequence ID from 'list_sequences'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'list_project_items' for broader item listings. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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