get_metasound_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool will load the asset 'if needed' and errors on a non-resolving path. It stops short of describing pagination or performance cost, but for a single-asset read that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return contents, then error semantics, then sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the Returns block is justified because there is no output schema.

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 single-parameter read tool the definition is complete: it names the resource, enumerates the returned fields (compensating for the absent output schema), discloses the error condition and lazy-loading behavior, and routes to three alternatives.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single metasound_path parameter is thoroughly documented with package-path and object-path examples. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Read the top-level metadata of a MetaSound Source asset') and enumerates exactly what it returns (class, graph class name, inputs/outputs with counts, interface_count). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_metasound_graph_info, list_meta_sound_nodes and list_meta_sounds, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not routing: 'For node and connection counts use get_metasound_graph_info' and names the two list tools for their respective jobs. It also states the failure condition (a path not resolving to a UMetaSoundSource is an error), leaving nothing to inference.

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