get_remote_script_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of a handshake/compatibility check, which is useful framing, but says nothing about cost, failure behavior when the bridge is mismatched, or what 'capabilities' enumerates. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 tight sentences: the capability statement first, the usage condition second. No filler, no redundancy with the name, and the key 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple read-only probe whose annotations cover safety. The only meaningful omission is any sense of what the reported 'capabilities' include and the undocumented optional prompt parameter.

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% for the single parameter 'user_prompt', and the description offers no explanation of what it does or why an information/version tool would accept a prompt. This is a notable gap an agent cannot resolve from structured data alone, especially since the parameter's purpose is non-obvious for this operation.

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: reporting the Ableton Remote Script version and capabilities, with the parenthetical '(handshake)' clarifying the mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_live_api or get_session_info, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

"Use this to verify the Live-side bridge matches this MCP server package" gives a concrete trigger condition for calling the tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or which sibling to prefer for API introspection, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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