get_arrangement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: results are sorted by time, include every clip/automation curve, and positions/lengths are given in ticks and bars. It does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free or what happens if no project is loaded, but the 'Get' framing and output details clarify the primary behavior.

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: the first gives the purpose and the second details the content. There is no verbose or redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the scope, sorting, content types, and units. It could add explicit notes about project-load requirements or contrast with get_track, but those are not critical for successful invocation.

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 parameter semantics are fully covered by the empty input schema. No additional description is required, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full song editor arrangement') and then enumerates exactly what is included: patterns, BB clips, sample clips, and automation curves with positions and lengths. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track or get_project_info.

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 phrase 'full song editor arrangement' establishes a clear context: use this when you need the complete arrangement, not a single track. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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