get_sequence_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it discloses what information will be returned. It does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, but for a simple getter this is reasonably transparent. It also does not discuss error conditions or permissions, but these are less critical for a read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes useful clarifications (bindings, tracks, sections) without unnecessary verbiage. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns at a high level and gives examples. It covers the essentials adequately for the tool's complexity. While it might mention potential errors or exact output format, these are not required for a straightforward getter, especially given the high schema 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'sequence_path', which already states it is a 'LevelSequence asset path'. The description adds 'level sequence' context but does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('full structure of a level sequence') with concrete examples (bindings, tracks, sections). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_level_sequence or add_track, and from the similar get_anim_sequence_info which targets animation sequences, not level sequences.

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 when to use the tool (when you need the structure of a level sequence) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tool get_anim_sequence_info exists, but the description does not mention that distinction. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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