get_active_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals read-only behavior via 'Read', and adds useful behavioral context: the result always includes activeSequence {name, id}, which can be compared across calls to detect mid-session sequence switches. It does not describe what happens when no sequence is open, though 'confirm a sequence is open' implies this is a relevant failure case.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and then the activeSequence caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably enumerates the returned structure and adds the activeSequence identity detail. It also provides usage context. The one gap is that it doesn't explain the behavior when no sequence is open, which is directly relevant to its stated use of 'confirm a sequence is open.'

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 documents that fully. The description reinforces this with 'No arguments.' Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading structural information about the active Premiere sequence and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, frame rate, duration, timecode, track summaries). It does not, however, explicitly name sibling tools like get_full_sequence_info or get_sequence_structure, so an agent must infer how it differs from similar sequence-info tools.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Use this first to confirm a sequence is open and to learn its duration before asking for transcripts or placing markers.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated usage context is concrete and actionable.

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