get_arrangement_clips

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (index, name, start_time, end_time, length, type) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention ordering, potential absence of clips, or whether both audio and MIDI clips are included, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the purpose, second lists return values, third provides a workflow hint, and then parameter definitions. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its core behavior, return fields, and parameter semantics. It also mentions a related tool. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned attributes. Minor omissions like ordering or clip types prevent a perfect score.

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 schema has no descriptions, and the description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as the track to inspect and user_prompt as telemetry. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though the meaning of track_index is somewhat obvious from its name.

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 a specific action ('List all clips placed in the Arrangement timeline for a track') with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_arrangement_clip_notes and create_clip by focusing on listing existing arrangement clips.

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 when you need to inspect clips on a track and provides a concrete downstream use case (passing the index to get_arrangement_clip_notes). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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