get_full_sequence_info

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

The description accurately describes a read operation that returns extensive data. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention performance implications or the fact that omitting sequence_id uses the active sequence (though the schema covers that). No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence efficiently front-loads the purpose and lists all included data categories without extraneous words.

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?

The description provides a thorough overview of the return content, compensating for the lack of an output schema. Still, it could mention whether the data is returned as a flat object or nested structure.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already explains the behavior. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail but clarifies the scope of returned data.

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 retrieves exhaustive sequence information and enumerates the specific data items (settings, tracks, clips, markers, transitions, in/out points, work area). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sequence_settings or get_track_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 on when to use this tool versus more specific alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools that retrieve partial information, the description should indicate that this is a comprehensive dump for full analysis.

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