reaper_list_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields and the index convention, but doesn't elaborate on potential limits (e.g., large projects) or pagination, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences: first lists output fields, second gives critical usage hint about 0-based indexing. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, output content, and an important usage note. An output schema exists (though not provided), reducing the need for return value details. It misses mentioning the response_format parameter's effect on output, but that's minor given schema coverage.

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%, so the description doesn't need to explain the single parameter (response_format). The description adds no extra parameter details, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all tracks with specific fields (index, name, volume, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like reaper_get_track_state that focus on a single track. It also clarifies the 0-based index used by other tools, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly tells the agent that the track index is 0-based and used by other track tools, guiding when to use this tool (to obtain indices for subsequent operations). However, it does not mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives like reaper_get_track_state for single-track queries.

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