get_selected_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (an object containing a list of indices), which is the main behavioral fact for a zero-argument query, but it omits what happens when nothing is selected (empty list vs error) and does not state that it is read-only/side-effect free.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. The 'Returns:' block is mildly redundant with the first sentence but is not wasted space since no output schema exists.

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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return contract, so nothing critical is missing. It could be more complete by noting the empty-selection behavior or that callers pair it with select_track/select_all_tracks.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-evident.

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 and resource ('Get indices of all selected tracks') and specifies the unit returned (indices), so an agent knows it is not returning track objects. It is distinguishable by name from selection mutators like select_all_tracks, but it never contrasts itself with get_selected_items or explains what an 'index' means here.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites. Siblings such as get_selected_items, get_all_tracks, and select_all_tracks are plausible alternatives, but the description gives no routing guidance.

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