list_sequence_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation and mentions included content, but does not disclose ordering, whether hidden/locked tracks are included, or failure behavior for invalid sequence IDs. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource. Every word contributes essential information; no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description partially compensates by stating that the result includes tracks with properties and clips. However, it leaves out response format details, such as whether the result is an array or grouped by track type, which would help an agent fully anticipate the output.

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 sequenceId parameter has a clear explanation referencing list_sequences and get_active_sequence. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the phrase 'specific sequence', earning the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('all video and audio tracks in a specific sequence'), and the information returned ('with their properties and clips'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_track_info (single track) or get_timeline_summary (summary data).

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 intended use is implied by the wording—call this when you need all tracks in a sequence with their properties and clips—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like get_sequence_structure or get_track_info, and no exclusion criteria.

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