get_sequence_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the description discloses the payload contents, but it says nothing explicit about read-only safety, behavior when the named sequence does not exist, or precedence when both sequence_id and sequence_name are supplied.

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 action first and the target-selection rule parenthetically embedded. Every clause (the field list) conveys real information about the return payload; no filler.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned settings fields, which is what an agent needs to know this getter answers 'what are the sequence's technical specs'. It stops short of covering error behavior or id-vs-name precedence, which is the only meaningful gap for such a simple read.

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% and both parameters already document that they default to the active sequence. The description echoes that same default behavior and the name/ID option without adding syntax or conflict-resolution detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve) plus resource (sequence settings) with an explicit enumeration of what is returned: frame size, frame rate, pixel aspect ratio, field type, audio sample rate, display formats. That field list clearly separates it from siblings like get_active_sequence, get_project_info, and list_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 notes that the target defaults to the active sequence and can be overridden by name/ID, which is useful selection context, but it never says when to prefer this over get_active_sequence or list_sequences, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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