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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms the read-only, listing nature and names returned fields, but it's vague about 'basic properties' and omits edge-case behavior (empty project, no open document, performance on large projects).

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It states the action, scope, and result in one concise breath.

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 0-parameter listing tool, the description covers the essentials: scope ('all sequences in current project') and return shape (IDs, names, basic properties). The primary gap is the undefined 'basic properties' term, which matters more because there's no output schema to compensate.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema carries no semantics, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends its space explaining the return value instead, which is the only useful thing it could add.

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-resource-scope structure ('Lists all sequences in the current Premiere Pro project') and specifies the return payload (IDs, names, basic properties). It distinguishes itself from list_project_items naturally, though 'basic properties' is undefined and it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from get_sequence_structure/get_full_sequence_info.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. the many siblings such as list_sequence_tracks, get_full_sequence_info, or get_sequence_structure. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions — a missed opportunity given the crowded sibling space.

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