retime_ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description correctly avoids repeating these. It adds behavioral detail beyond the schema by explaining the order (as added) and the error handling for unresolved retimes (returned as retime_error). This is valuable context that helps the agent anticipate output variations.

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 two concise paragraphs that front-load the core purpose and then add detail about fields and error cases. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure is clear and efficient, with no fluff 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description correctly avoids repeating return value structures. It does provide essential behavioral context (ordering, error representation) that the schema may not convey. The parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the key non-obvious aspects of the operation, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only parameter, path, has 100% schema description coverage, which fully explains its semantics and resolution rules. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 states the tool lists every retime stretch with its current playback position, order, and associated data. It specifies the resource (retimes) and the action (listing), and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retime_add and retime_rm by focusing on inspection rather than mutation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not mention when to prefer it over retime_add or retime_rm, nor does it provide exclusions. The context of 'list' is inferred from the name and sibling structure, but explicit guidance is missing.

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