get_current_scene_transition_cursor

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns 1.0 when no transition is active, which is not obvious. With no annotations provided, this adds necessary transparency. However, it does not explain what the cursor represents during an active transition (e.g., 0.0 at start, 1.0 at end), though the range implies this. The description goes beyond the bare minimum.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core information (current transition progress) and includes the special case (no transition active) efficiently.

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 getter with no annotations or output schema, this description is complete. It states the return range and the special no-transition behavior, which is all an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 for no parameters is applied, since the description cannot add meaning beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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 specifies the resource (current scene transition cursor) and its value range (0.0-1.0). It distinguishes from sibling getters like get_current_scene_transition, which likely returns the transition name, by focusing on progress. The verb 'get' is implicit in the tool name, but the description effectively communicates what the tool returns.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention related tools like set_current_scene_transition or set_tbar_position, nor provide context on polling or transition states. It simply states what it returns, leaving the agent without usage context.

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