get_master_track

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not say whether the tool returns a track object, a dictionary of properties, or a simple value, nor whether it can fail when no project is open. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds minimal value but does not contradict the annotation.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'master track'. It is concise, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description should clarify what information is returned. 'Information about the master track' is too vague: an agent cannot predict whether the result is a track ID, a property map, or a human-readable summary. The sibling list contains many more specific getters, so the description should at least hint at the return shape or scope. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but not the semantic content of the result.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description's only job is to clarify what the tool returns, which it does only vaguely, but with no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is fair.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get information about the master track'), so an agent knows it is a read operation targeting the master track. However, it does not specify what kind of information is returned (e.g., name, volume, pan, mute, sends, FX), and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_track, get_track_master_send, or get_track_peak. It is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many track-related getters (get_track, get_track_master_send, get_track_peak, get_track_count), and the description does not explain what makes get_master_track the right choice. An agent would have to guess whether this returns a summary, a handle, or a specific set of properties.

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