track_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation and '(including clips)' hints at the return scope, but the description does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, how invalid track IDs are handled, or any permission requirements.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the parenthetical adds meaningful detail without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The output schema covers return-value details, and the operation is simple with only one required integer parameter. The main gaps are the lack of explicit read-only guarantees and usage context relative to sibling tools, but overall the description is reasonably complete for this simple getter.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on track_id beyond implying it selects a single track. It does not mention where to obtain the ID, valid ranges, or project scoping, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from its name alone.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed info for a single track,' which differentiates it from mutation tools like track_set_muted or track_set_name. The parenthetical '(including clips)' adds valuable scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling read tools like timeline_get_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timeline_get_info or bin_get_clip_details. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the tool's name and general description.

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