get_selected_tracks

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds that the tool returns an object containing a list of selected track indices, which is useful behavioral context. No side effects are implied, and the description aligns with the read-only hint.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the verb and resource. There is no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only getter with no parameters, the description gives the basic return info, but it does not specify the exact structure of the returned object (e.g., property key, zero-based vs one-based indices). This ambiguity could cause an agent to misinterpret the result. However, the overall complexity is low, and the description covers the core purpose.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and the baseline of 4 applies. No additional semantics are required or provided.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('indices of all selected tracks'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings that target items or MIDI notes. The return type is also stated. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_selected_items or select_track. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternative conditions. The intended context is inferable but not spelled out.

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