get_current_scene_transition

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents (kind, duration, fixed-duration, settings) and implies a read-only operation via the 'get' verb. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., when no scene is active) or return structure, but for a simple getter, the listed fields provide useful behavioral insight.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Full detail on the current transition') and then lists the specific fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity (zero params, no output schema), the description effectively communicates the main return fields. It could have clarified that 'settings' is a map of transition-specific properties or mentioned potential edge cases (e.g., null when no transition), but for a basic getter, the provided detail is sufficient.

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 the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for zero params is 4. The description adds value by indicating what the returned data will contain, even though no input semantics are 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving full detail on the current scene transition, specifying the exact data elements (kind, duration, fixed-duration, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_scene_transition_list (which lists all transitions) and get_current_scene_transition_cursor (which only gets the cursor position).

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 implies its use case: when you need current transition details. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the name and context make it clear. Given the sibling setter tools (set_current_scene_transition), the agent can infer this is the corresponding getter. No exclusions are needed.

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