get_sequence_in_out_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only repeats the tool name. It does not disclose read-only nature (though implied by 'Get'), nor does it mention behavior when no sequence is active or when in/out points are not set. No return format or error conditions are described.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter tool, front-loading the essential purpose.

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 or output schema, the description is minimal but lacks details about return value (e.g., what format are the in/out points?) and edge cases (e.g., no active sequence). It is adequate but could be more informative.

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, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the empty schema. Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 states 'Get the current sequence in and out points', which clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (sequence in/out points). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_sequence_in_out_points' and 'clear_sequence_in_out', but does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_area' or 'get_playhead_position'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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