get_full_sequence_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-emphasize safety. It adds context about the breadth of returned data but does not disclose potential performance implications or other behavioral traits beyond what the name and annotations suggest.

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 efficiently lists the components. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullets. Still, it earns a 4 for conciseness.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return structure. It lists components but lacks details on format (e.g., JSON keys, nesting). The complexity of 'exhaustive information' is not fully addressed, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the optional sequence_id parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning or formatting details about the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 gets exhaustive information about a sequence, listing specific components (settings, tracks, clips, etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the list distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sequence_settings or list_sequence_tracks.

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 does not mention exclusions, performance considerations, or contrast with more specific getters. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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