sequence_get_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself discloses that the tool is read-only and takes no action. This is important behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It also conveys what kind of information will be returned.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage context, then the critical read-only behavior. Every sentence contributes value.

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 zero-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description covers what it returns, what it can be used to determine, and that it has no side effects. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource: the loaded sequence structure and the status of its containers, instructions, conditions, and triggers. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutation siblings like sequence_start, sequence_stop, and sequence_load_plan.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to determine whether a sequence is loaded, running, completed, failed, or waiting. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended context is clear enough.

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