Get timeline

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description correctly spends its budget elsewhere: frame-rate integer positions, half-open range semantics for timeline ranges versus inclusive source in/out, and the fact that large timelines get truncated to max_clips. The one gap is that it never says how an agent detects truncation occurred or where to look for the full data.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the units and range conventions that most often cause misinterpretation. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With a full input schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to supply the interpretation rules that structured data cannot — frame units, range boundary conventions, and the truncation cap, including a pointer to the output's 'conventions' field. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it restates the max_clips truncation consequence and implies the sequence default, but adds no format hints for 'path' or 'sequence' beyond what is already documented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') plus an enumerated resource set (tracks, clips, mixes, compositions, guides) scoped to exactly one sequence of a Kdenlive project. The word 'read-only' and the sequence scoping distinguish it from siblings like inspect_project and list_project_media without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for reading timeline structure once it has a project path. There is no explicit 'use this instead of inspect_project when...' routing, and no preconditions (e.g., whether the project must be closed or readable) are mentioned.

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