get_playhead_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a read operation. The word 'Gets' adequately implies no mutation, and 'current' indicates it reflects live state. However, it does not disclose what form the returned position takes (e.g., frames, seconds, timecode) or any behavior when the sequence is not open.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly identifies the action, the object, and the required scope. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description provides a viable minimum: it identifies the resource and scope. However, with no output schema, the lack of return-value format or units leaves some ambiguity about how the position is represented, which an agent might need for downstream tool calls.

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 100%, and the schema already documents sequenceId as 'The ID of the sequence'. The description adds marginal context by referring to the 'specified sequence', but it does not enrich parameter semantics significantly beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('current playhead (CTI) position in the specified sequence'). It correctly implies a read-only operation and is distinguishable from siblings like set_playhead_position, which would move the playhead. The term CTI is also explained, adding clarity.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it compared to alternatives such as get_active_sequence, get_source_monitor_position, or set_playhead_position. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or 'use this instead when...' hints.

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