get_track_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return fields (index, name, color, group flag, group index) and clarifies the purpose without guessing. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'List all tracks' strongly implies a non-mutating operation. It adds behavior context beyond the bare tool name.

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: a clear main sentence, a return-value summary, and a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list operation, the description fully specifies what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the essential information needed to use it correctly: the output fields and the purpose of the parameter. No output schema is present, so the description adequately carries the needed 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?

The only parameter, user_prompt, is meaningfully described as 'the original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)', which adds context beyond the schema's simple title and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's role.

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 verb ('List all tracks') and resource ('group/folder membership'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_session_info. It also states the purpose: to identify group tracks and nested tracks without guessing indices.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (when you need track hierarchy/group membership) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It implies this is the go-to tool for hierarchy information, which is sufficient, though it could be more explicit about not using it for single-track details.

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