get_routing

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 fully covered elsewhere. The only added behavioral signal is 'with every available option', which vaguely suggests the return enumerates all choices, but scope, indexing basis, and error behavior are not disclosed.

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 single sentence is short and front-loads the resource, so it is not padded. But it is under-specified rather than concise: it is a sentence fragment that spends its few words on 'every available option' instead of on the parameters the agent must supply.

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 described. Still, for a read tool with an undocumented track_type discriminator and an output schema promising 'every available option', the description leaves too much implicit about what a track is identified by and how to interpret the returned option sets.

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 two parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: track_index is only obliquely implied by 'a track's', and track_type (default 'track', with no enum) is not explained at all. The reader cannot tell what valid track_type values are or whether the index is zero- or one-based.

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 identifies the resource (a track's audio/MIDI input and output routing) and hints that all available options are returned, so a reader can infer it is a read of routing state. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling set_routing. Purpose is inferable but not affirmatively stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. track must exist / be selected), and no mention of the obvious alternative set_routing for changing routing. The agent must infer the read-vs-write split purely from the tool names.

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