get_track_envelope

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the description does not need to explain side effects. It adds only a minimal return expectation ('Object with envelope info') and no deeper behavioral context such as what the returned envelope object contains. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds essential orientation, and there is no unnecessary prose.

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 2-parameter required tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete: it omits track_index, gives only a vague return description, and provides no differentiation from sibling envelope tools. The readOnlyHint mitigates safety concerns, but the agent cannot fully determine correct invocation or result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents envelope_name with useful examples ('Volume', 'Pan', 'Mute'), but it omits the required track_index parameter entirely, leaving the agent without a documented meaning for that parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get a track envelope by name.' It clearly identifies the object and the lookup key, and the 'track envelope' wording distinguishes it from fx-envelope siblings like get_fx_envelope, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 alternative envelope-related tools such as get_fx_envelope, get_envelope_points, or arm_track_envelope. The context in which get_track_envelope is preferred is left entirely to inference.

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