list_sequence_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It confirms it's a read operation but omits details like read-only nature, side effects, or authorization needs. The description adds no transparency beyond the basic action.

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 of 12 words. It is efficient and immediately conveys purpose, though it could benefit from slight expansion without losing 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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., list of track names or objects). It mentions 'video and audio' but not whether they are combined or separated. The tool is simple, but completeness is lacking for a self-contained description.

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% for the single parameter, which already describes 'sequence_id' as 'Sequence ID or name. Uses active sequence if omitted.' The description adds no extra context, so it meets the baseline expectation without improvement.

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 'List all tracks (video and audio) in a sequence' uses a specific verb ('list') and clearly identifies the resource ('tracks') and scope ('in a sequence'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_sequence_structure' and 'get_track_info'.

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 prerequisites, context, or situations where another tool (e.g., 'get_sequence_structure') would be more appropriate.

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