get_playhead_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly identifies this as a read operation ('Get'), which is enough to infer non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., timecode string, frames, seconds), leaving the agent uncertain about how to use the output.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is present.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks detail on the return value type. An agent needs to know what form the position takes to use the result effectively. With no annotations, the description should provide a bit more context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%). According to the rule, baseline is 4. No additional parameter description is 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current playhead (CTI) position in the active sequence'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_source_monitor_position or get_clip_at_position by specifying the context (active sequence).

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 such as set_playhead_position, move_playhead_to_edit, or get_source_monitor_position. An explicit usage context would help an AI decide which tool to invoke.

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