list_sequences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Lists') and specifies the output fields, but does not mention edge cases such as behavior with no open project, sort order, or whether 'basic properties' includes mutable fields. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not highly transparent.

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 sentence starting with the action verb 'Lists', followed by the target and output details. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 explains the return value by mentioning IDs, names, and basic properties, which gives the agent a reasonable expectation. However, 'basic properties' is somewhat vague, and the description could be improved by listing examples of those properties. Still, the scope ('current project') is explicit and the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no parameter explanations are needed.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'all sequences in the current Premiere Pro project' and states the output contents (IDs, names, basic properties). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_sequence_tracks (which lists tracks) and get_sequence_count (which returns a count).

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 clear context by scoping to the 'current Premiere Pro project', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a basic listing tool the usage is self-evident and no exclusions are necessary.

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