list_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Lists' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the output fields are named, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens if no project is open, or precisely what 'basic properties' includes.

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, front-loaded sentence states what the tool does and what it returns. Every word earns its place, with 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?

For a zero-parameter listing operation, the description is largely complete: it specifies the project scope and the general shape of the return data. It falls slightly short only because there is no output schema and the phrase 'basic properties' is vague about exactly which fields are included.

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, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The 0-parameter baseline applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance where none is needed.

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 ('Lists'), a clear resource ('all sequences in the current Premiere Pro project'), and names the returned data ('IDs, names, and basic properties'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_active_sequence or get_full_sequence_info because it targets the full collection at a basic-detail level.

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 clear: call this when you need an overview of all sequences in the current project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'basic properties' implies it is not for deep sequence detail, giving enough context without being misleading.

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