Get Document State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds behavioral context by specifying that it returns canonical handles and a marker_count, and notes it is a one-shot read (no pagination). This exceeds the annotation coverage and gives the agent expected output shape, though it stops short of detailing exact return types or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned fields; the second sentence provides the sibling and writer counterparts. Every clause earns its place, making it both concise and well structured.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description covers all essential return fields (fps, range, handles, marker_count) and links to related tools for further actions. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret the result without additional context.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description is not required to document parameters. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than inputs, adding value without redundancy.

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 reads key document fields (fps, frame range, current frame, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from related siblings by mentioning list_markers for marker listing and set_document as the writer counterpart. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from similar tools.

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 usage context by calling it a 'one-shot reader' and points to list_markers for listing markers and set_document for writing, giving a clear sense of when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need the current state in one call' or mention exclusions, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to pick the right tool.

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