get_sequence

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior for include_items, but it does not cover other behavioral details such as how project/sequence resolution works or what happens when optional identifiers are omitted.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted text, and the include_items behavior is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the phrase 'soft effect' is slightly jargon-heavy for such a short definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover safety. However, with three parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify how project and sequence select the target, especially since all parameters are optional.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_items, but project and sequence remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving key parameter semantics unclear.

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 identifies the resource (a sequence) and what is returned: details, tracks, and optionally every track item and soft effect. It is clearer than the tool name alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like list_sequences or get_track_item.

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 only usage signal is the conditional behavior of include_items. There is no guidance on when to use get_sequence instead of list_sequences, get_track_item, or list_track_items, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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