get_active_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes the read-only nature evident ('Get detailed information') and discloses the returned fields, but says nothing about prerequisites (host app running, sequence open), what happens when no sequence is active, or any permission/rate constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first, followed by the return contents. The long comma-separated field list is dense but each item adds information; no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of enumerating the return payload, which is the main thing an agent needs for a zero-parameter read. The remaining gap is error/precondition behavior when no sequence is active.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly describes only outputs rather than inventing parameter semantics, though its field enumeration is really return-value content that belongs in an output schema.

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+resource ('Get detailed information about the currently active sequence') and enumerates exactly what is returned: ID, name, duration, CTI position, In/Out points, track counts, and per-track clip counts. The 'currently active sequence' scoping cleanly separates it from siblings like list_sequences, get_sequence_settings, and get_project_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 phrase 'currently active sequence' implies the precondition that a sequence must be open and active in Premiere Pro 2019, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative sibling (e.g., get_sequence_settings for configuration, list_sequences for enumeration) is named, so routing is left to inference.

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