get_playhead

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a restatement of the return payload (frame + sequence), which the output schema already provides, and says nothing about behavior when no viewer is open or no sequence is loaded.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 an output schema, zero parameters, and annotations covering the read-only nature, the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally viable. It still omits any statement of the calling context or edge-case behavior, leaving a gap for an agent that does not know the app state.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-related detail is missing.

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 fragment "Current viewer frame and the sequence being viewed" identifies the resource (playhead state: frame + sequence) but uses no verb and reads as a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does. It is distinguishable from set_playhead only by inference, and no sibling (e.g., get_selection, open_in_viewer) is named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus set_playhead, get_selection, or open_in_viewer, and no mention of preconditions such as an open project or an active viewer. The agent must guess the call context entirely.

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