get_playhead

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

No annotations are supplied, but this is a zero-parameter read, so the disclosure burden is inherently small. The description does add that the returned figure is in seconds, which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs; it says nothing about scope (active sequence vs. source monitor) or whether a sequence must be open.

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 short phrase with zero padding, and the key word 'playhead' leads it. It is almost too terse for its own good — the parenthetical unit is the only elaboration — but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it omits whether the value is relative to sequence start, a float vs. timecode, or what happens when no sequence is open. Adequate for a trivial getter, but not complete for an agent that must act on the 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The unit annotation ('seconds') is a small extra, though it belongs to the return value rather than to any input.

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?

States the resource (playhead) and the value returned (current time) plus a unit the name alone doesn't convey. It reads as a fragment with no explicit verb, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling set_playhead, but the getter/mutator split is obvious enough from the name.

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 statement of when to call this versus set_playhead, go_to_edit, or get_status, and no note that it reflects the active sequence's playhead. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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