list_sequences

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The one genuine addition is the default behavior when 'project' is omitted — it enumerates all open projects — which is useful. Nothing is said about ordering, result size, or whether closed projects are ever included.

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 sentence with no waste; the scope constraint is packed into the parenthetical rather than front-loaded as a clause. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But with 0% schema description coverage on the only parameter, the description should fully compensate and does not — it leaves the identifier format for 'project' undefined.

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 coverage is 0% and the 'project' property carries no description, so the description is the only source of meaning. It does explain the optionality and the all-open-projects fallback, but never clarifies whether 'project' expects a name, ID, or index, nor what happens on an invalid value.

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?

Names the resource (sequences) and scopes it precisely to one project or all open projects, plus the attributes returned (duration, frame rate, format). The plural form plus the sibling get_sequence makes the list-vs-fetch distinction inferable, though it is never stated outright.

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 parenthetical '(or all open projects)' implies the no-argument path, but the description never says when to use this versus get_sequence, list_projects, or list_bin. Usage must be inferred from the name.

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