als_summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the tool works on the file on disk without Live running, resolves a project folder to its newest set, and the detail flag expands device trees and clips. It stops short of noting cost/size implications for large sets or what happens when a folder contains no .als.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the payload list and then parameter semantics, which is a sensible order. The content enumeration is long but each item is meaningful; only minor tightening would raise this to a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape coverage is not required, and the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong: what counts as a valid path and what detail toggles. Only edge-case behavior (empty folder, unsupported file, output volume on large sets) is left unspecified.

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 carry both parameters, and it does: 'path = an .als file or a project folder (newest set)' explains the accepted input shapes and the resolution rule, and 'detail=True includes full device trees and every clip' explains the default-off expansion flag precisely.

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 ('Summarise a saved Live Set') and immediately distinguishes itself from the rest of the sibling set with 'without opening Live', which most other tools (get_session_info, get_track_info, get_device_parameters) require. The enumerated contents (tempo, locators, tracks, devices, clips, returns, plug-ins) make the scope concrete.

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?

'without opening Live' gives a clear situational cue: use this for offline/static inspection rather than querying a running instance. It does not, however, name the near alternatives (als_lint, als_diff, als_export_midi) or state when to prefer them, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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