get_sequence_structure

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation with no mention of side effects, which is sufficient. Could be improved by explicitly stating it is non-destructive, but the current text is clear.

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?

Two sentences: first defines exactly what is returned, second provides use case. No extraneous words, highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the output composition (tracks, clips, positions, gaps, metadata). Lacks details on return format but remains functional.

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% with a description for the sole optional parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Get a complete structural overview' identifying that it returns all tracks, clips, positions, gaps, and clip metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_timeline_gaps, which are more focused.

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?

Explicitly states it is 'Essential for understanding timeline state before making edits,' providing clear context for when to use. Does not specify alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is strong enough to imply appropriate usage.

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