Get Target Tracks

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: multiple tracks can be targeted simultaneously, every targeted track is returned, and unreadable states appear under 'unreadable'. This partial-result behavior is valuable and not in the annotations.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding only the key constraints (multiple tracks, unreadable fallback). No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, return format need not be described; annotations cover safety. The description adds the one behavioral nuance (unreadable tracks) an agent needs to interpret the result correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not discuss parameters and there is nothing to compensate for.

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 ('Get') and resource ('which tracks are currently targeted for editing'), and the detailed clause about multiple targeted video/audio tracks in Premiere makes the scope unambiguous. An agent can readily distinguish this from set_target_track or get_track_info.

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 when to use it (to discover current targeting state) but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. No routing to set_target_track or set_all_tracks_targeted is provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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