tracks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that list order is mixer order and indices shift when tracks move, which steers the agent to persist ids rather than indices. It stops short of describing how nested insert/send data is shaped.

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 sentences, both dense with information: the first defines the payload, the second gives the operational caveat. The return-shape content is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so field-by-field, including the id/kind taxonomy. Remaining gaps are the internal structure of insert effects and send levels, and whether return/master tracks are included, but an agent can still call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 gives a specific resource (every track, in mixer order) and enumerates the returned fields — id, kind, instrument, fader, pan, mute/solo/arm, colour, group, inserts, sends. That is enough to distinguish it from tracks_create/tracks_update/tracks_delete and the narrower mixer_get without opening a schema.

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 the ids in later calls; indices shift when tracks move" tells the agent the tool is a discovery step that feeds id-based mutations, and warns that positional indices are unstable. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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