get_sequence_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a non-destructive read, but the description does not state what is returned, whether the operation can fail, or how settings relate to the active sequence state. The resolution/framerate examples add a little context but not full transparency.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the operation ('Gets the settings') and keeps the examples compact, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. It does not clarify whether the returned settings include everything or only common fields, nor does it describe error behavior or distinguish itself from broader sibling getters.

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 schema already fully documents sequenceId as 'The ID of the sequence', so the description need not repeat it. However, the description also adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Gets') and identifies a clear resource ('settings for a sequence'), with useful examples like resolution and framerate. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as get_full_sequence_info or set_sequence_settings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related siblings such as set_sequence_settings or get_full_sequence_info, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and generic description.

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