Get Sequence Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it retrieves 'resolution, frame rate, etc.' but does not disclose whether the returned settings reflect effective or override values, nor whether it errors when no sequence is active. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 gets to the point and includes examples of what settings are returned. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could name alternatives, but for its length it is effective.

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, read-only, single-parameter tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is sufficient. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over richer sequence inspection tools, and doesn't state what happens if no sequence is active, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add much beyond that, only confirming the tool returns settings and implying the sequence can be identified by ID or name or omitted to use the active sequence. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting and description provides no additional parameter detail.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the settings (resolution, frame rate, etc.) of a sequence.' It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like set_sequence_settings since it is a read operation. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so not a 5, but it is specific enough to understand its role.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need a sequence's settings. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_sequence_structure or get_full_sequence_info for more detailed sequence data. The optional sequence_id parameter hints at active-sequence behavior, but no explicit guidance is given for choosing this over similar read tools.

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