transport_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload includes BPM and beat-position values, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not describe units beyond BPM/beats or whether the state is live-updating versus a snapshot, but with annotations doing the heavy lifting this is a reasonable 3.

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?

A single sentence listing the four returned facets with units inline where relevant (BPM, beats). No preamble, no restatement of the tool name, nothing wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by naming the four state facets an agent would need. It is slightly thin on whether 'record state' means armed/recording and whether position is a float or bar:beat string, but for a zero-parameter read it is nearly complete.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals the tool is argument-free by describing only returned state, avoiding any suggestion that a transport selector or filter is 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 enumerates exactly what the tool exposes: play/record state, tempo in BPM, time signature and playhead position in beats. Combined with the name transport_get, an agent can tell this is the aggregate transport snapshot rather than a setter or a single-value read. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with tempo_get or transport_seek, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list suggests 'call this when you need the whole transport snapshot at once.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement that this is the read counterpart to transport_set_tempo/transport_seek, and no note that it takes no arguments so no filtering is needed. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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