list_sequences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the concrete payload (names, sequence IDs, active status, durations, track counts, clip counts), which tells the agent this is a non-mutating enumeration. It does not state pagination, ordering, or behavior on an empty project, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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 no filler; the scoping phrase ('all sequences in the current ... project') comes before the field list, so the most decision-relevant information leads.

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?

For a parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what the schema cannot: the identity and shape of the returned records. Absent only minor operational details such as ordering or empty-project behavior.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The one sentence spent on output fields is arguably output semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 (List) and resource (sequences) with explicit scope ('all sequences in the current Premiere Pro 2019 project') and enumerates the returned fields. The word 'all' plus the field list distinguishes it from the sibling get_active_sequence, which returns a single one.

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 can infer this is for enumerating every sequence rather than the active one, and it naturally contrasts with get_active_sequence. There is, however, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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