LiveMCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.2.8
- Disambiguation3/5
Many tools have clear, distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between pairs like add_notes_to_clip/add_notes_extended, get_notes_from_clip/get_notes_extended, set_track_volume vs set_track_properties, and the various device parameter getters. These overlapping tool pairs create potential misselection, though descriptions do help clarify which to prefer.
Naming Consistency4/5The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_track_info, set_track_volume, create_scene). Minor deviations like 'duplicate_to_arrangement', 'trigger_back_to_arrangement', and 'toggle_browse' are few and still readable, so the pattern is largely predictable.
Tool Count1/5With 220 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for a single MCP instance. Even for a DAW control server, this is an extreme number that will overwhelm agents and make tool selection expensive and error-prone.
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers an extremely wide range of Ableton Live functionality: transport, tracks, scenes, clips, devices, parameters, browser loading, Max patcher manipulation, and docs. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no arrangement clip envelope editing, no project save/export), but the core workflows are well covered.
Average 3.8/5 across 220 of 220 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the operation name. It does not disclose side effects, whether the rect is overwritten, validation behavior, or the need to be in presentation mode.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. It is under-specified, but conciseness itself is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a 3-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It omits domain-specific explanations and parameter format details, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the three parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of box_id, bridge_session_id, or the expected format of presentation_rect (likely [x, y, width, height]).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Set') and resource ('presentation rect') for a 'patcher box', which is enough to understand the basic operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_box_attrs or explain what 'presentation rect' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid box_id, being in presentation mode) or any context about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects like where the new scene is inserted, which properties are copied, or whether the operation affects the arrangement view. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. The purpose sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the args section, while clear, is the only informative part. The brevity is due to omission rather than efficient choice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and one fully explained parameter, the description fails to explain the behavioral semantics of duplicating a scene. Nothing is said about the result placement, impact on session/arrangement, or undo behavior, making it incomplete for a mutating tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a parameter title with no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical meaning by specifying 'Zero-based index', which compensates fully for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Duplicate a scene' is a tautology of the tool name 'duplicate_scene', restating it without adding any unique meaning or differentiating from sibling tools like duplicate_track or duplicate_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_to_arrangement or duplicate_clip. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'allowlisted' suggests mutation is restricted to certain attributes, but the description does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error behavior. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It neither defines 'allowlisted' nor explains the purpose of each parameter or the expected outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'attrs' but does not map to the actual parameters (box_attrs, object_attrs, bridge_session_id). It fails to explain what each parameter does or the structure of the attribute objects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set) and the resource (patcher box) with a specific constraint (allowlisted attrs). It implies a write operation but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_box_attrs or create_box.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'allowlisted attrs' hints at a restricted use case, but there is no explicit explanation of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It indicates the destructive nature via the word 'delete' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether deleting a box also affects patchlines or data), reversibility, or error conditions. This minimal disclosure lacks important context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and free of filler. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and potential side effects, so it earns its place but does not provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits explanation of the second parameter, any prerequisites, and behavioral side effects, leaving the agent without essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The box_id parameter is fairly clear from its name, but bridge_session_id is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action (delete), the resource (a box), and the context (the attached patcher). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_patchline, which removes a connection rather than an object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the action and target. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting), error conditions (e.g., missing file path), or required preconditions (e.g., device selection). The optional bridge_session_id parameter is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action efficiently, though it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role within a larger set of Max device operations and the presence of an optional parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the selection prerequisite, the meaning of 'existing file path', or how it fits with sibling tools like open_selected_device_in_max. The output schema exists but doesn't substitute for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional parameter (bridge_session_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (save), the resource (selected Max device), and the target (existing file path). This is specific enough to distinguish it from related tools like open_selected_device_in_max, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a potential 'save as' operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of workflow context or what happens if the device has no existing file path. It simply states the action without situational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a tempo change via tapping, but does not explain how tapping works (e.g., multiple taps, averaging, whether it affects playback). This is a thin disclosure for an action that mutates the song state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy ('Tap tempo' and 'by tapping'). It is concise in length but wastes words, making it less efficient than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema (which covers return values), the description lacks essential context about the tap-tempo behavior. It does not explain whether multiple taps are required, how the BPM is calculated, or how this differs from a direct set_tempo call. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to document. The schema already fully covers parameters with an empty object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool sets BPM via tapping, but it is somewhat tautological ('Tap tempo' and 'by tapping') and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like set_tempo, which also sets BPM. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity about the interactive tapping behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_tempo. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations are absent, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states 'toggle or set' without explaining what happens in each case (e.g., the role of the enabled parameter's null vs boolean), whether the change is persistent, or any side effects. The impact on the patcher's UI remains vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable. However, the brevity sacrifices detail that other dimensions require.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any note about return values (though an output schema exists). The complete behavior of toggling versus setting remains ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'set' but never clarifies the significance of the enabled parameter (null triggers toggle, true/false sets explicitly), nor does it mention bridge_session_id at all. The semantics must be inferred solely from schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (toggle or set) and the resource (the attached patcher's presentation mode). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_presentation_rect, which deals with geometry rather than mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description is a standalone statement without context for selecting it among the many view and presentation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and offers no information about side effects, permissions, error handling, or results. The output schema exists but is separate, so the description itself is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices informativeness; it is not padded or repetitive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what values are expected, or what the output represents, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the seven parameters. There is no mention of what classname, left, top, args, box_attrs, object_attrs, or bridge_session_id mean, leaving the agent with no semantic help beyond raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Create a new Max object box in the attached patcher.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_patchline (which creates connections) and delete_box (which removes boxes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond the implied need for an attached patcher. The description lacks any mention of exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether boxes are affected), failure conditions (e.g., if the patchline doesn't exist), or any other behavioral traits beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action word 'Delete' and concisely identifies the resource. Length is appropriate for the simple operation, making it easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description provides only a minimal one-liner. It doesn't explain what a patchline is in this domain, how endpoints are specified, what the output represents, or any required context. This is far below minimum viability for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the five parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'inlet', 'outlet', 'from_box_id', 'to_box_id', or 'bridge_session_id' mean in the context of a patchline. The phrase 'between two boxes' hints at the IDs but doesn't map them to parameters or explain the port semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the object (patchline) with scope (between two boxes). It distinguishes from siblings like create_patchline and delete_box, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when deletion is allowed, or that create_patchline should be used for adding connections. The description provides no directional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or return behavior beyond simply 'getting' attributes. The existence of an output schema helps but is separate from the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For such a simple tool, the description omits important context such as how to obtain a valid box_id or what specific attributes are returned. Given the lack of annotations and parameter explanations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for box_id or bridge_session_id. It fails to explain what these parameters represent or how they map to the patcher box, leaving the agent without essential semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'object attrs and box attrs for a patcher box'. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_box_attrs, which performs the opposite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The getter nature is implied, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (setting warp mode) but does not mention side effects, mutability, undoability, or any impact on clip playback. The zero-based index note is a useful detail but does not cover broader behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a brief purpose sentence and a clean Args list. No redundant information is present, though it could be slightly expanded with a warp mode reference or example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It does not explain what warp mode indices represent, how this relates to warp enablement, or what the output/return value is. Sibling tools exist, so more context is needed for reliable selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the schema by specifying that track_index and clip_index are zero-based, which the schema does not provide. However, warp_mode is only described as 'Warp mode index to set' without enumerating valid values or their meaning, so the compensation is only partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'warp mode of an audio clip'. It is specific enough to convey the core function, but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like set_clip_warping or set_clip_ram_mode, which also operate on clip properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only explains parameter meanings and does not mention side effects, scope (e.g., arrangement vs. session), reversibility, or any behavioral constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a summary sentence followed by an indented argument list. It avoids verbosity and every line serves a purpose. However, it is quite sparse and could benefit from a short scope clarification, but structure itself is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description still lacks essential context. It does not specify whether the loop region applies to the arrangement, session, or transport, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description remains incomplete for a user to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide useful semantics: loop_on (enable/disable), loop_start (position in beats), loop_length (length in beats). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it lacks details about null handling, defaults, and relationships between parameters (e.g., ignored when loop_on is false). Partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the loop region and on/off state' – a specific verb (set) with a clear resource (loop region) and additional detail (on/off state). However, it does not differentiate between this and the sibling tool 'set_clip_loop', as the term 'loop region' could be confused with a clip loop. Purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_loop or other looping tools. It only lists arguments with no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of when this should be preferred over other related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Return summary metadata,' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what the metadata contains, whether bridge_session_id affects behavior, or any potential side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and the resource, which is ideal for quick parsing by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple getter with an output schema present, so return values need not be explained. However, the meaning of 'currently attached patcher' and the bridge_session_id parameter are left unexplained, which creates context gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the Max ecosystem. The description is minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional parameter, bridge_session_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema. With such low coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'summary metadata for the currently attached patcher.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_patcher_boxes or get_selected_max_device, which address different aspects of patchers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context about when 'currently attached patcher' is relevant. The only clue is the implied use case, which is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a creation operation (mutation), but offers no details on side effects, requirements, or what happens on failure. The behavior is essentially implied by the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value represents, what constitutes valid inlets/outlets, or any side effects. The tool likely operates in a patcher/boxes context (siblings suggest this), but the description alone would not let an agent use it correctly without further guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It only hints at 'two boxes' (mapping to from_box_id and to_box_id) but completely omits explanation of inlet, outlet, hidden, and bridge_session_id. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema's type/name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('patchline'), further defined by 'between two boxes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_patchline and create_box.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'between two boxes' implies the usage scenario of connecting existing boxes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like delete_patchline, or any prerequisites such as box existence or port validity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions cropping to loop boundaries but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the clip in place, if it is reversible, or any side effects. The term 'crop' implies trimming but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus an essential Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but adds the zero-based detail, so it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two integer parameters and no output schema requirement, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'loop boundaries' means in context, whether the clip is in the session or arrangement view, or any prerequisites. More context would help the agent select and invoke it correctly among many clip operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section adds critical meaning by specifying that track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and that clip_index refers to a clip slot. This is essential for correct usage and goes beyond the bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'crop' with a clear resource 'clip' and a scope 'to its loop boundaries'. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_clip_loop, the action of cropping is distinct enough for an agent to understand its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any situational context. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it over related clip operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'Show and focus' without explaining side effects, validity of view names, error behavior, or whether it changes focus in a particular way. The examples are helpful but limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a structured Args section. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is essentially a minimal viable. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling view tools and doesn't mention output or edge cases. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but leaves room for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides example values for view_name ('Browser', 'Arranger', etc.), adding practical guidance beyond the bare string type. However, it doesn't specify the complete set of allowed values or the exact format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Show and focus' with resource 'Ableton UI view', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like show_view by adding 'focus', but doesn't explicitly name the alternatives. The examples of view names add clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like show_view, hide_view, or is_view_visible. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios. It only states the action and gives examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action without mentioning side effects like launching an external application, requiring a selection, failure conditions, or reversibility, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded, direct, and contains no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, one unexplained parameter, and the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a selected device), what happens if no device is selected, or the nature of the editor launch. The output schema exists but is not leveraged. The description is too sparse for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the sole parameter bridge_session_id. The parameter's purpose and effect remain completely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'open', the target 'selected Max device', and the destination 'native Max editor', which precisely defines the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like save_max_device or get_selected_max_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage whenever a Max device is selected and needs to be edited in the native editor, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools, mention exclusions, or provide context about prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Stop playing a clip' with no mention of side effects, what happens if the clip is already stopped, or errors on invalid indices. It does not clarify whether this affects only session clips or also arrangement clips, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and two bullet points for parameters. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and easy to parse. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is thin. It lacks any behavioral notes, error handling, output description, or relation to sibling tools. With no annotations and no output schema in the visible definition, the description should carry more weight to fully specify the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section explicitly defines both parameters as zero-based indices for track and clip slot, which adds meaningful information beyond the bare schema (integer types, titles). This clarifies the expected input format, though it does not cover edge cases or value ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop playing a clip.' It is distinct from siblings like stop_all_clips and stop_playback, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them. The meaning is unambiguous with the given track and clip indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_all_clips or stop_playback. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the clip needing to be in the session view or currently playing, nor does it indicate when it would be inappropriate to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. 'Trigger session record' is minimal and does not explain whether it starts, stops, toggles, or has side effects. It lacks necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the basic action without any filler. It is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse given the large number of sibling tools. It does not clarify what 'trigger' means (start, stop, toggle) or what the return value represents, leaving the agent without enough context to select or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'trigger' with a clear resource 'session record', so it states what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'set_session_record' or 'set_record_mode', which are closely related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states functionality, with no context on prerequisites, toggling behavior, or when to prefer this over related record tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It documents the creation action but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing clips, prerequisites like empty clip slots, or error behavior (e.g., missing file, invalid track index). This is a mutation tool, but the operational constraints are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every line provides necessary information without fluff or repetition of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the tool lacks annotations and the description omits behavioral context (e.g., whether existing clips are replaced, whether the slot must be empty, and what happens if the file path is invalid). For a creation tool with side effects, these gaps make it incomplete for reliable usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args block adds value by clarifying that track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and file_path must be an absolute path. This is helpful but minimal; it does not specify file format constraints or relationship to the track structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new audio clip in a clip slot from an audio file. It uses a specific verb ('create'), specifies the resource ('audio clip' in a 'clip slot'), and differentiates from siblings like create_arrangement_audio_clip by emphasizing the clip slot context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The sibling tools indicate a session vs. arrangement distinction, but the description does not state when to choose this over create_arrangement_audio_clip or create_take_lane_audio_clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation doubles the clip length, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or changes to the clip's loop settings, leaving significant ambiguity about the mutation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear one-line operation statement followed by a docstring parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description leaves out important context such as prerequisites (e.g., clip must be a loop), exact behavior regarding loop boundaries, and potential side effects. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but the overall context is still thin for an agent to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero-based index definitions for both parameters, which adds context beyond the bare schema titles. However, it does not elaborate on how to determine valid indices or any constraints, so the added value is modest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Duplicate the loop content of a clip' and its effect 'doubling its length', specifying a distinct operation from sibling tools like duplicate_clip. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the clip being a loop, nor any contrasting with sibling tools like duplicate_clip or set_clip_loop.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read operation without explaining sync prerequisites, potential side effects, or return behavior. The term 'synced' is ambiguous and not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, though it lacks some contextual details that would make it more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Though an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description fails to provide usage context relative to sibling doc tools or clarify the 'synced' aspect. The single parameter is not explained beyond schema, and no annotations help. This is minimal for a tool with such a narrow purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines page_id as an integer, and the description merely says 'by id' which adds no extra meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what the id refers to or any constraints, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'full synced docs page' and access method 'by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs (search) and get_docs_chunk (chunk) by emphasizing 'full' page content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a page_id is known and full content is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like search_docs or get_docs_chunk. The word 'full' hints at the chunk counterpart but no clear exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only says 'set' with no information about side effects, reversibility, validation, or required conditions (e.g., device must be a rack with chains). This is a mutation tool with no safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The docstring is efficient and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block. Each parameter gets a single line, and no unnecessary content is included. The structure is clean and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the parameter semantics are well covered, the description lacks any context on when this tool is appropriate (e.g., vs. track-level mixer control), what conditions are required (valid indices, rack with chains), or any behavioral caveats. The output schema presumably covers returns, but for a 6-parameter tool, more contextual guidance is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides crucial semantics absent from the schema: zero-based indexing for track/device/chain, the allowed values for parameter_name, and the conditional send_index when parameter_name='send'. This compensates for the schema's 0% coverage, though the 'value' parameter is vaguely described as 'New value' without range or type details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a rack chain mixer parameter') and enumerates the parameter types ('chain_activator', 'pan', 'volume', 'send'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_device_parameter. It is specific but assumes familiarity with what a chain mixer is, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_track_volume, set_track_pan, or set_device_parameter. The description only names the operation and parameters, leaving the agent to infer context, with no explicit exclusions or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core mutation (setting color) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or validation behavior. It adds minimal transparency beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a clear action statement followed by a structured Args list. Each parameter is on its own line with a concise definition. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Given the presence of many sibling tools, some guidance on when to use this over alternatives would improve completeness. It is minimally viable but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description is essential. It explains each parameter: zero-based track index, zero-based clip slot index, and Ableton color index. This provides meaningful meaning beyond the schema's bare integer types, though it omits value ranges or error handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set the color of a clip' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from general tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'set_clip_slot_color', though the parameter descriptions use 'clip slot', which adds some clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_slot_color or set_track_color. It lacks any context about suitable scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clarifies allowed values for property_name and zero-based indices, but does not mention side effects, conditions, error handling, or what happens on invalid input. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact docstring with a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args block. Every line contributes useful information and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and property constraints, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage context, prerequisites (e.g., requiring a drum rack device), and behavioral consequences. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is moderately complete but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly defining each parameter, noting zero-based indices, and enumerating valid values for property_name. It adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it omits value ranges for the integer values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a drum-chain-specific property') and enumerates the exact property names, distinguishing it from generic device setters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling drum-related tools like set_drum_pad_mute or set_chain_mixer_value, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only lists arguments, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the parameter list. This is minimal to no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only states the action and the parameter meaning, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotence, permissions, or return behavior. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single clear sentence and a brief Args section. Every word is functional, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is essentially complete. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool or how it relates to other record-related tools. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects the adequate but minimal context provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only shows a boolean 'enabled' with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining 'True to enable Session Record, False to disable it', which fully clarifies the parameter's meaning. This is essential since schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Enable or disable Session Record.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'set_record_mode', the name and description focus tightly on Session Record, making the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session_record_status' or 'set_record_mode'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where enabling/disabling session record is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether this changes the current UI state, requires the view to exist, or returns visibility status. The verb 'show' implies a state change, but no behavioral context is given beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-sentence summary and a compact Args block. No wasted words, and examples are integrated efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and has an output schema (reducing the need to explain return values), the description leaves ambiguity about its effect (visible state vs. switching focus) and lacks usage context among sibling view tools. Given the low complexity, it's minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the sole 'view_name' parameter by listing example values like 'Browser', 'Arranger', 'Session', and 'Detail/DeviceChain'. This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, though it doesn't provide an exhaustive enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Show an Ableton UI view' with a specific verb and resource. It provides examples of view names, clarifying the resource type. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'focus_view' or 'is_view_visible', so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention hide_view, focus_view, or is_view_visible, nor does it state whether it's for switching the active view or only for showing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation via the word 'Read', which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose additional details such as what a 'chunk' is, how syncing works, or any side effects. It is adequate for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is not penalized, but the lack of necessary detail makes it only average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the domain-specific term 'synced docs chunk' is unexplained, and no workflow context is given regarding how to obtain the chunk_id, making the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines chunk_id as an integer with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description merely says 'by id' without explaining what the ID refers to or how to obtain it, providing minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as a 'synced docs chunk' accessed by id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_docs_page or search_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to read a chunk by its ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_docs_page or search_docs. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get detailed properties' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the groove_index is invalid, or which specific properties are returned. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose and a single argument definition. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, return values are presumably defined there. The description covers the essential input parameter but provides no context about the groove pool, prerequisites, edge cases, or related tools. For a simple getter with one parameter, it is adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the title 'Groove Index' with no description. The description adds 'Zero-based index of the groove in the groove pool,' which gives meaningful context about the indexing and the target object. However, it does not elaborate on valid ranges or potential errors, so it is adequate but not exceptional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get detailed properties of a specific groove,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_groove_pool (which retrieves the entire pool) and set_groove_property (which modifies a property). The args clarify the index-based access to a single groove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where get_groove_pool would be more appropriate or how it relates to other groove-related tools. There is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden. It only restates the tool's function without disclosing side effects, permissions, or the nature of the returned data. Since 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, the behavioral transparency is weak.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary content, and the structure is clean and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is a simple no-argument getter and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient. However, the phrase 'Session Record state and current record status' is somewhat ambiguous, and a bit more context about what 'state' vs 'status' means would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this does not hurt; baseline for no-param tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Session Record state and current record status', indicating it retrieves recording state information. It is reasonably specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_record_mode or get_session_record setter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives. No exclusions or suggested contexts are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the two-step behavior (load rack then kit) but doesn't mention prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, or whether it replaces existing devices. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and parameters, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, failure modes, or how this tool fits with related device-loading tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a brief explanation: track_index is zero-based, rack_uri is the URI of the rack, kit_path includes an example. This adds value beyond the bare parameter names, but rack_uri remains vague and the descriptions are shallow.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Load a drum rack and then load a specific drum kit into it.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect that load generic devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when a drum kit needs to be loaded into a drum rack, but it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the large family of device/browser tools, this is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'locally synced', implying a read-only offline search. It does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, ordering, or result format. The agent is left to infer that search is non-mutating.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence summary plus a structured argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. All sentences serve a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly, especially with an output schema present. However, it could benefit from noting how to discover available source IDs or check docs sync status (e.g., get_docs_status), but this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args block in the description explains each parameter (query, source_id, limit) beyond the schema's sparse titles. This is especially valuable given the schema description coverage is 0%. The explanations are clear, though source_id's 'all' could be slightly more explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'locally synced Ableton and Max documentation', making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_docs_page or get_docs_chunk, but the search action is distinct enough from page/chunk retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use search_docs versus alternatives like get_docs_status, get_docs_chunk, or get_docs_page. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds the synonym 'deactivated' and parameter meanings, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens when indices are out of range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a clean arg list. Every line earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the operation statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter, and the description covers the core operation and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. However, it lacks any mention of edge cases or side effects, though these may be less critical for a trivial boolean setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains all three parameters: track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and muted is a boolean with true/false semantics. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and title. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a strong compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('clip muted') with a clear parameter ('muted'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like set_track_mute and stop_clip, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the operation itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'Start playing' without disclosing any contextual behavior such as whether it starts from the current playhead, resets position, or affects recording state. This is a state-changing operation, but the description is minimal and does not explain side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether playback starts from the current song position, but the low complexity means this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start playing') and the resource ('the Ableton Live session'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'continue_playing', which could also start playback but likely from a different position or state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use start_playback versus alternatives like continue_playing or stop_playback. The description only states what it does, not when to use it or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey side effects. It only states the deletion action without discussing index validation, permanence, or effects on related data, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a one-line purpose followed by parameter definitions. It doesn't waste words and is appropriately structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool, the description covers parameters but omits behavioral details like error handling or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the tool still lacks completeness regarding what deletion entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines integer types with no explanation. The description compensates by explaining that track_index is zero-based and arrangement_clip_index refers to the track's arrangement_clips list, which is meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a clip from the arrangement view.' This specific verb and resource distinguish it from related tools like delete_clip, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter docs imply usage for arrangement clips with zero-based indices, but no when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get a hierarchical tree', which is essentially the same as the tool name, and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or caveats (e.g., whether the browser needs to be open, if the tree is cached, or if it can fail). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. It uses a single sentence for the purpose and a bullet-style list for the parameter values. Every part adds necessary information and nothing is redundant or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has a single optional parameter, and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It adequately covers the parameter. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool relative to related browser tools and doesn't mention any edge cases or limitations, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly lists all accepted values for category_type: 'all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', and 'midi_effects'. It also clarifies that the parameter filters by type. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Get a hierarchical tree of categories from Ableton's browser.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'hierarchical tree of categories' distinguishes it from similar browser tools like get_browser_items_at_path. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does and the parameter, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies mutation, there is no mention of side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or validation behavior. The note about the raw integer color is a parameter detail, not a behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact argument list. No redundant or filler content is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of a nearly identical sibling tool 'set_clip_color', the description does not sufficiently differentiate usage context. It also fails to disclose behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a mutation tool lacking annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: zero-based indices for track and clip, and clarifies that color is a raw integer, not a color index. This adds meaningful context beyond bare schema, though it lacks details on color encoding or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') with a specific resource ('the color of a clip slot'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'set_clip_color'. The phrase 'clip slot' precisely identifies the target, making the tool's function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_clip_color' or 'set_scene_color'. It does not mention any contextual scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool 'Set's something, which implies mutation, but gives no additional behavioral context like side effects, reversibility, or requirements (e.g., armed track). This is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with one parameter, the description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overall description is still somewhat thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a complete mapping of the 'value' parameter to quantization settings (0=None, 1=1/4, etc.), which greatly enriches the bare schema that only says 'integer'. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates and clarifies the expected input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set the MIDI recording quantization' with a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_clip_trigger_quantization, but the meaning is unambiguous. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose without explicit sibling contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_trigger_quantization or other MIDI recording settings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage orientation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that it sets the selected track and explains the parameter, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites. For a state-changing tool, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single purpose sentence and a compact parameter explanation. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and parameter, and the output schema exists, but it lacks context on edge cases, valid ranges, or what the selection affects. This leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly adds 'Zero-based index of the track to select' which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). This fully clarifies the meaning of track_index and compensates for the lack of schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the selected track in Ableton Live' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_selected_track or set_track_name, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the selection workflow. The description simply states the action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the core action. It does not mention side effects on playback, valid time ranges, whether the command works when the transport is stopped, or any error conditions. This is insufficient behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one purpose sentence plus a compact parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant or unrelated content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the action and parameter. However, with no annotations and no mention of behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the song is not playing, whether the position is absolute or relative), there are noticeable gaps. The output schema is provided, so return values need not be described, but the behavioral context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a type and title for 'time', but the description's Args section adds the semantic meaning: 'Position in beats to jump to.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the agent a clear understanding of the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the current song time (playhead position) in beats.' This provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_song_time, but the verb 'set' against 'get' conveys the write action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_song_time or set_tempo. The description lacks any contextual use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent receives no direction on appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details itself, but it only states the core action. It does not mention where the clip is created (e.g., selected track/slot), whether existing clips are overwritten, permissions needed, or undo/recording context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that uses precise wording. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters, the description is minimally viable, but gaps remain: it does not clarify which track or clip slot receives the new clip, whether captured notes must exist, or how the tool behaves in different session/arrangement contexts. An output schema exists but is not described, so the description still carries the burden of explaining the operation's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description sufficiently covers the action with 'recently played MIDI notes' and 'a new clip'; the baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('recently played MIDI notes') with a clear destination ('into a new clip'). This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_and_insert_scene, which implies a different target, and from create_clip/add_notes_to_clip, which are more generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capture_and_insert_scene or add_notes_to_clip. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., recent MIDI input) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that name matching is case-insensitive and trims whitespace, which is valuable. However, it does not state what happens on mismatch, whether the tool is read-only, or any error/return behavior beyond the word 'confirm.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds an essential constraint and matching detail. This is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema is present. The description covers the core purpose and name-matching behavior, but leaves out error behavior, index interpretation, and how multiple selectors are handled. Given the small scope, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that track_name and device_name are compared case-insensitively after trimming, and that at least one selector must be provided. However, it does not clarify the semantics of track_index and device_index, such as whether they are zero-based or how they interact when combined with names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool confirms whether the intended comparison device matches the current Ableton selection. The verb 'Confirm' and resource 'intended comparison device' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_selected_device and select_device by focusing on verification rather than retrieval or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage constraint by stating 'Provide at least one expected selector,' but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_validation_readiness or get_selected_device. The context implies it is a pre-check before comparisons, but this is not clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and explains the index parameter, without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., invalid index or if a track already exists at that position).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence and followed by a brief, necessary parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter creation tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks any comparison to sibling tools or mention of behavioral constraints, making it moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the type and default for 'index', while the description adds crucial meaning by explaining that it is the insertion position and that -1 appends to the end. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ("Create") with a clear resource ("audio track") and context ("in the session"). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_session_audio_clip, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_midi_track. The description only states the action and parameter, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Create a new return track in the session.' It does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, failure conditions, or default behavior. For a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and target in under ten words, making it very concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple 0-parameter operation and there is an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, it lacks any additional context about how return tracks behave (e.g., default settings, limits) that would help an agent anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('return track in the session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_midi_track or create_audio_track. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_audio_track, the description would benefit from stating that this is specifically for return tracks and not for regular audio/MIDI tracks, but no such context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the index parameter (insert position, -1 appends) but does not disclose side effects like whether the new scene becomes selected, how existing scenes shift, or any permissions required. This is minimal transparency for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, containing a one-sentence summary and an 'Args' section for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral side effects, making it only minimally complete. It adequately covers the action and parameter but leaves out when and how it fits into the broader scene workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only lists index as an integer with default -1 and no description. The description compensates by explaining that index is the position to insert the scene and that -1 appends at the end. This adds meaningful clarity for the sole parameter, fully covering its basic semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new scene in the session', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like duplicate_scene, delete_scene, or set_scene_name. It immediately conveys the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as duplicate_scene or set_scene_name. It lacks any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameters, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing clip content is replaced), preconditions (e.g., whether the take lane must already exist), or any post-condition behavior. This is a notable transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with four well-documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate but misses key context: no mention of output behavior (despite having an output schema), no preconditions, and no side-effect caveats. Given the presence of siblings, some usage context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining each parameter: zero-based indexing for track_index and take_lane_index, and units in beats for start_time and length. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema names and types, though it does not specify constraints like non-negativity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific action: 'Create a MIDI clip inside a take lane.' It names the resource (MIDI clip) and the target container (take lane), distinguishing it from siblings like create_take_lane_audio_clip or create_arrangement_midi_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_take_lane_audio_clip or create_clip. The description lacks any context about preconditions, selection rules, or disambiguation from other clip creation tools, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning irreversibility, permissions, effect on playback, or undo behavior. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot know the consequences of invoking it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by parameter definitions. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose allows quick understanding. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. An output schema likely exists (as indicated in context), so return values need not be described. However, lacking annotations, it omits any context about side effects or when this action is appropriate, which leaves the description minimally complete but not strong.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only integer titles with 0% description coverage, but the description’s Args section explicitly defines both parameters as zero-based indexes. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, enabling correct invocation. Slightly more detail (e.g., ranges) could improve it, but it already compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a clip from a clip slot' uses a specific verb ('delete') and a precise resource ('clip slot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_arrangement_clip or delete_track. It conveys both the action and the target context unambiguously.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_arrangement_clip or stop_clip. While the phrase 'clip slot' implies session view usage, it does not state exclusions or mention prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a scene' without mentioning permanence, side effects on scene clips, or whether confirmation is needed, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by an Args block, with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and parameter meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are likely covered elsewhere. However, as a destructive operation, the description lacks information about side effects (e.g., renumbering of other scenes) and any potential errors, leaving minor but relevant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the parameter name and type (integer). The description adds crucial meaning by specifying 'Zero-based index of the scene to delete', which is not inferable from the schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'scene', clarifying that it removes a scene from the session. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scene and duplicate_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the target slot is overwritten, whether the clip content is copied or moved, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a structured argument list with no redundant text. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a mutation operation with no annotations, the description covers parameters but omits important contextual details like overwrite behavior, session vs arrangement scope, and return value semantics. The existence of an output schema isn't leveraged to explain expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are explicitly defined as zero-based indices for source and destination tracks/clip slots. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer schema, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Duplicate a clip to another clip slot' with a specific verb and explicit target resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_clip_loop by emphasizing slot-based copying.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_clip_loop or duplicate_to_arrangement. The description only lists arguments, with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result includes hours, minutes, seconds, and frames, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or dependencies (e.g., transport state), though 'Get' implies a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences with no redundant filler. The description is front-loaded with the verb and output format, followed by the return-value breakdown.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple no-parameter getter and it names the returned components. However, it misses an opportunity to distinguish from the sibling `get_song_time`, so it's not fully complete in the broader tool context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% covered), so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies because a no-parameter tool requires no further parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current song time') and clearly specifies the format (SMPTE/timecode). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling `get_song_time`, so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this over `get_song_time` or other time-related tools. The description only states the operation, with no use-case context, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and parameter zero-based indexing, but omits any side effects, edge cases (e.g., invalid indices, behavior when new_index equals device_index), whether the reorder is destructive or reversible, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single leading sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean, clearly formatted list of arguments. There is no unnecessary information or repetition. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it easy to quickly parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple three-parameter operation, but the description lacks key contextual details. It does not mention potential failure modes, requirements (e.g., track/device must exist), or the meaning of the return value. While an output schema exists, the absence of annotations and the ambiguous new_index semantics leave the description incomplete for robust usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It gives a brief explanation for each argument (e.g., 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based target position in the device chain'). This adds value beyond the schema, but the semantics are minimal and leave ambiguity about the exact reorder behavior (e.g., whether new_index is before or after removal). It does not fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Move a device to a new position in a track's device chain.' This clearly identifies the verb (move), the resource (device in a track's chain), and the scope. The tool name 'move_device' is directly reflected, and no sibling tool performs the same operation, so it is well differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reordering devices in a track's device chain but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no context about prerequisites or scenarios. The usage is only implied by the action described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and risks. It only says 'press a button,' which implies a mutating action but does not describe what happens if no dialog is present, whether the dialog closes, or any error behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear action statement followed by a parameter explanation. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics. However, it omits important contextual details like the need for an existing dialog, expected return value, and failure behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides the crucial detail that the index is zero-based, which is not present in the input schema. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the parameter name and type, though it could have also mentioned bounds or special values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool presses a button in the current Ableton dialog box, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_application_dialog, which retrieves dialog information rather than interacting with it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool, such as requiring an open dialog or how to handle multiple buttons. It does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (select and show in Detail View) but does not mention side effects like changing the selected track, error handling, or whether the view is opened automatically. It adds some context beyond the name but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences plus parameter definitions. Every word earns its place, and the parameter explanations are clear and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple selection tool, the description provides the core operation and parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, but the presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces that need. Minor omissions like edge cases or prerequisites are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only field names and types with no descriptions. The description adds critical meaning by defining each parameter as a zero-based index for track and clip slot, which is essential for correct invocation. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Select a clip') and its effect ('show it in the Detail View'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the 'Detail View' detail adds enough specificity to distinguish it from other clip operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the clip must exist) or when to prefer another selection tool, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It explains the integer-to-quantization mapping but omits critical details: how the target clip is selected (no clip parameter exists), whether it applies to the selected clip, and what happens if no clip is selected or an invalid value is used.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with a clear action sentence followed by a scannable list of allowed values. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool appears simple, the description omits how the target clip is identified, which is crucial since the only parameter is 'value' and no clip selector exists. It also lacks any usage context or error behavior, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds essential meaning to the single 'value' parameter by providing an explicit enum mapping (0=None through 7=8 Bars), which is absent from the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('clip trigger quantization'), and it is distinct from sibling set_clip_* tools by naming the exact property. The enum listing further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 or its alternatives, such as set_clip_launch_mode or set_midi_recording_quantization. There is no mention of prerequisites or selection requirements, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It accurately describes the toggle behavior and the meaning of the 'enabled' argument. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., does arming recording change transport behavior?), prerequisites (e.g., must a track be armed?), or what the return value indicates. It's minimally transparent but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence with a clear action, followed by a minimal parameter specification. No fluff, no redundant prose. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one boolean parameter), has an output schema (though not inspected), and sits among many sibling tools. The description covers the core function but doesn't explain edge cases, return values, or when to choose this over 'set_session_record'. For a simple toggle, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter 'enabled' as a boolean. The description adds meaning by defining True as 'arm recording' and False as 'disarm'. Since schema coverage is 0% (no titles/descriptions), this direct explanation is helpful, though it doesn't go beyond a simple restatement of the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Enable or disable arrangement recording.' This is a specific verb phrase that distinguishes it from related tools like 'set_session_record' and 'trigger_record', though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The resource (arrangement recording) and polarity (enabled boolean) are both evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the 'enabled' parameter and the tool name, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_session_record' or 'create_arrangement_midi_clip'. The context is narrow enough that a user can infer it, but no explicit guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (set) but does not elaborate on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the return track must exist), error behavior for invalid indices, or whether the operation is undoable. This is comparable to the update_drive example, where low transparency is noted for a similarly simple mutation without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a neatly formatted Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three parameters, the description is mostly complete given that an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). However, it lacks context about boundaries (e.g., valid ranges for indices), dependencies (e.g., required return tracks), and potential side effects. These gaps are typical for mutation tools without annotations, making this a minimum viable yet not fully comprehensive description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining all three parameters: return_index is zero-based, send_index is zero-based, and value is a float between 0.0 and 1.0. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare field titles in the schema, nearly fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a send value on a return track.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_send, which presumably operates on regular tracks. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of set_track_send for non-return tracks or any conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but explicit directions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that scene_index is zero-based, but it omits side effects, error behavior (e.g., out-of-range index), or return values. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise: a single front-loaded sentence stating the action, followed by a minimal argument list. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with two parameters, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, without annotations, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., what happens on failure). It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent when handling invalid inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for either parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly defining 'scene_index: Zero-based index of the scene' and 'name: New name for the scene.' This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could include constraints like name length or index bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the name of a scene,' which is a specific verb-object statement. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_scene_color or set_track_name by explicitly naming the target resource as 'name of a scene'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the scene index is valid) or mention of when this tool is preferred over other scene-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tempo change affects playback immediately, is global, or has any side effects. The only constraint given is the BPM range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two short sentences with the action front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the description covers the basics but lacks contextual guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools and any behavioral notes. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but usage context is still missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a valuable valid range (20-999) and unit (BPM) to the otherwise bare number parameter. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this compensation is essential and well-executed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('session tempo') with a unit (BPM), making it easy to distinguish from related tools such as set_scene_tempo or tap_tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_scene_tempo or tap_tempo. The description simply states the action without any context on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the obvious toggle action without explaining side effects, the meaning of Tempo Follower, or what happens globally when enabled/disabled. No additional context beyond the parameter mapping is offered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with the action front-loaded as the title. Every word earns its place, and the Args section is cleanly formatted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean setter, the description is minimally viable: it states the purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about Tempo Follower's role, potential effects, or return behavior, although the existence of an output schema mitigates the latter. It meets the minimum bar but does not exceed it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly maps the boolean parameter values to actions: 'True to enable Tempo Follower, False to disable it.' Since the schema property has no description (0% coverage), this direct explanation adds clear value for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Enable or disable Tempo Follower', clearly indicating the verb (enable/disable) and resource (Tempo Follower). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, as it is the only tool focused on toggling Tempo Follower.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or related operations. It does not mention, for example, that set_tempo or tap_tempo could be used instead for other tempo-related adjustments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, or any preconditions. For a mutation tool affecting the global time signature, this is a notable gap, though the simplicity of the operation mitigates the impact somewhat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence followed by a compact argument list. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance, validation constraints (e.g., valid denominator values), and contextual context about when to apply this vs other timing tools, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both numerator and denominator with musical examples ('4 for 4/4'), which the schema does not provide. The schema only lists them as integers, so the description adds meaningful semantic context and makes parameter intent clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'the song time signature'. The qualifier 'song' distinguishes it from the sibling tool set_scene_time_signature, indicating a global scope rather than a scene-specific one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_scene_time_signature or set_tempo. The description simply states the action without any contextual usage instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or any constraints beyond the action itself. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the purpose in the first sentence and parameter details listed efficiently. No wasted words, and the structure is immediately readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter, so the description covers its core function and parameters. However, missing usage context and behavioral notes (e.g., track scope, undo behavior) leave it just at the minimum viable level, especially with no annotations to back it up.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: track_index is explicitly zero-based, and name is described as the new name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the name of a track') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_color by focusing on the name property, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or context (e.g., how to obtain a valid track_index) mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the creation action and the index parameter, but does not disclose potential side effects, undo behavior, required permissions, or the effect on existing tracks and session state. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is clear and directly explains the parameter. There is no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what the parameter means. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any behavioral context slightly limits completeness, though for this simple create action it is largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides a default value and type (integer, default -1), with zero schema description coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics: 'Position to insert the track. Use -1 to append at the end.' This clarifies the role of the index parameter and the special value, going beyond the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new MIDI track') and the resource ('in the session'), making it specific and unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_audio_track by explicitly specifying MIDI track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_audio_track or create_clip. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage context is the parameter explanation, which is not about selection of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether the track must already exist. The description only states the action without any additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single purpose statement and an args section. Every word contributes to understanding the tool. No unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential parameter meaning and action. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like side effects or prerequisites, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly defines the only parameter: 'track_index: Zero-based index of the track.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title 'Track Index', fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. The parameter is clearly explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a new take lane on a track.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_track or create_clip. The inclusion of 'take lane' makes the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, but fails to mention important traits like irreversibility, potential side effects (e.g., deleting contains clips), or any safety warnings. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every word adds value, and the structure is well front-loaded with the action then the argument. No wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basics: what it does and the required parameter. An output schema is present so return values are presumably defined, but key contextual details for a destructive tool are missing, such as whether the deletion is permanent, if there are constraints (e.g., cannot delete the last track), or what happens to dependent clips. This leaves the tool minimally viable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists 'track_index' with an integer type and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the parameter as 'Zero-based index of the track to delete.' This crucial addition removes ambiguity about indexing and is directly actionable for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Delete a track from the session.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and a clear resource ('track'), distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools like delete_scene or delete_arrangement_clip. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., track existence, selection requirements) or scenarios where another deletion tool might be more appropriate. The description focuses only on what the tool does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Duplicate a track' and does not mention side effects, such as whether new tracks are created, whether clips are copied, or whether the operation is undoable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args section. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states the purpose and parameter clearly. However, with no annotations and no usage context, it could offer more about what duplication entails or when to use it. The presence of an output schema makes the lack of return-value documentation acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines track_index as an integer with no description. The description adds crucial meaning: 'Zero-based index of the track to duplicate.' This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Duplicate a track,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_clip, duplicate_scene, and duplicate_to_arrangement by clearly targeting tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, differences from similar tools, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and arg meanings, but does not mention whether launching a clip stops other clips, respects launch quantization, or what happens if the clip is already playing. No side effects or error conditions are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence for the action and a simple arg list with terse definitions. No wasted words, action is front-loaded, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The essential action and parameters are covered, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it only minimally complete for a simple tool. Given the lack of annotations, more context about side effects or selection criteria would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only bare titles ('Track Index', 'Clip Index') with no descriptions. The description adds critical context: both are zero-based indices, and clip_index refers to a clip slot. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start playing a clip' with explicit parameters for track and clip indices. This specific verb+resource ('start playing' + 'clip') distinguishes it from siblings like stop_clip, fire_scene, and start_playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fire_scene or start_playback. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about session vs. arrangement. Usage is only implied by the function name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but provides no details about the return structure, potential side effects, or how the 'current counting-in state' is determined. Minimal information beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous details, making it maximally efficient for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema that likely documents return values, and a clear one-sentence summary, the description is largely complete. However, a brief note on when to use this getter relative to metronome settings could enhance it, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 for no parameters applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related clutter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' followed by a clear resource: 'metronome count-in settings and current counting-in state.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_metronome and other state getters by naming the exact data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or how it relates to set_metronome or other count-in-related functionality. The description offers no directional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool gets, without mentioning read-only nature, potential errors if no rack chain is selected, or any side effects. This lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter getter, the description is largely complete, and the output schema likely documents return values. However, it could mention the prerequisite of a rack chain being selected, which is not explicit. This is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so no parameter explanation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the currently selected rack chain in Ableton's UI' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_selected_track, get_selected_scene, and get_selected_device by focusing on the rack chain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the many selection-related sibling tools, explicit guidance would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the action and scope but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., behavior when no device is selected), or whether it is a safe read operation. This adds little beyond the tool name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, single action), and an output schema exists to describe the return value. The description communicates the core functionality sufficiently. However, it does not mention potential edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., selected track), which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is nothing additional to convey about parameter semantics. Per the calibration, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the currently selected device on the selected track.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('selected device'), and specifies the scope ('on the selected track'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like get_selected_track or get_selected_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no indication of prerequisites or conditions (e.g., a track must be selected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail by specifying the return fields (current_song_time, can_undo, can_redo) and the unit (beats), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The 'get' prefix implies a read operation, but more explicit transparency would be better given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return values. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema shown but indicated as existing), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its function and return values. It could optionally mention related tools, but that's already covered in the usage guidelines dimension. For a zero-parameter getter, this is fully sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no need for additional parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the current song time position and undo/redo availability, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_song_smpte_time' which also retrieves time-related information, so it could be more explicit about the beat-based format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_song_smpte_time should be used for SMPTE time or that this tool is the beat-based equivalent. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set' but does not mention that this is a mutating operation, any side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites. The parameter semantics are covered, but behavioral context is lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a clear, structured Args section. No wasted words; every line adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three parameters, the description covers the essential param semantics and purpose. However, it lacks usage context (when to apply), behavioral notes (side effects, errors), and prerequisites. Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains all three parameters, including zero-based indexing for track_index and clip_index, and the numeric enum mapping for mode (0=Trigger, 1=Gate, 2=Toggle, 3=Repeat). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the launch mode of a clip.' This distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools (e.g., set_clip_warp_mode, set_clip_pitch) by focusing on the launch mode aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a session view clip or valid clip slot, nor does it reference any alternative tools for related functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the enable/disable action and parameter meaning, but does not note any side effects, limitations, or prerequisites, such as requiring a selected MIDI clip or session view.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean setter, the description is mostly sufficient, and the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. However, given no annotations, it could mention the context of use or any effects beyond the immediate toggle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds semantic meaning to the 'enabled' parameter by stating 'True to enable, False to disable,' which the schema does not provide (0% schema coverage). This is valuable for the single parameter, fully clarifying its meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Enable or disable' with the resource 'Draw Mode' and context 'for editing in Ableton Live,' clearly distinguishing it from other mode-setter siblings. It identifies the exact function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Clear' which implies destructive mutation, but it does not mention whether the action is undoable, what happens if no envelope exists, or whether it affects only the session clip (vs arrangement). The description lacks critical side-effect context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args block. No unnecessary words are used, and every line adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and all parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, it lacks context about clip type (session vs arrangement), prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), and potential side effects. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only property names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter with the important 'Zero-based index' prefix and clarifies relationships: track_index points to a track, clip_index to a clip slot, device_index to a device on that track, and param_index to a parameter on that device. This adds sufficient meaning for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Clear the automation envelope for a specific device parameter in a clip.' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates it from siblings like clear_all_clip_envelopes and get_clip_envelope by focusing on a single parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_all_clip_envelopes or insert_clip_envelope_step. However, the description implies usage for clearing a single parameter's envelope, and the zero-based index parameters define the target precisely. This is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies destructiveness by saying 'delete,' but does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects (e.g., impact on sends or routing), or whether undo is possible. The phrase 'from the session' adds minor context, but overall the description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the action plus an Args section clarifying the parameter. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics, and the output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the absence of usage guidelines and any behavioral warnings (e.g., reversibility) makes it only minimally complete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description defines 'return_index' as 'Zero-based index of the return track to delete,' which adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. This helps the agent know exactly how to specify the parameter, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a return track from the session.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'return track' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_return_track or get_return_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 delete_track for regular tracks or conditions like whether a return track can be deleted while in use. The description merely states the operation without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get... information') and adds specificity with 'remote-script transport capability.' However, it does not disclose details about potential side effects, prerequisites, or the nature of the returned information beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters), the existence of an output schema, and the description's clear statement, the description is nearly complete. The only slight omission is elaboration on what 'transport capability' entails, but the output schema likely covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning since there are none. No deduction is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LiveMCP remote-script transport capability information'), clearly stating what the tool does. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_livemcp_status, the resource is distinct enough to convey its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for obtaining capability information, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. For a zero-parameter getter, this may be sufficient, but the absence of any usage context is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get all parameters' and describes the argument, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return structure looks like, possible errors, or side effects. The output schema may cover return format, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with only two sentences plus a docstring-style argument description. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every word contributes meaning. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple getter with a single parameter and an output schema exists (so return details are covered), the description is nearly complete. It lacks only a note about potential errors or how the device is identified beyond the index, but that is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, device_index, is clearly explained as a zero-based index within the master track's device chain. This adds critical context beyond the bare integer type in the schema, which has 0% description coverage, and fully compensates for the lack of schema-described parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('all parameters of a device on the master track'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_device_parameters or get_return_device_parameters by specifying the master track. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explicitly state that this is only for the master track, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the phrase 'on the master track', but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device_parameters or get_return_device_parameters. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. Although it states the action, it does not reveal whether quantizing is destructive, affects all notes, or requires specific clip state, similar to the update_drive low-scoring example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized, with a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean args list. The enum mapping is necessary and presented efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and states the core operation. However, it omits information about side effects and any usage context, though an output schema exists to cover return values, making it slightly above adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each argument: zero-based indices, the grid enum mapping, and the amount default and range. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Quantize notes in a clip to a grid,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from siblings like add_notes_to_clip or modify_notes by focusing on grid quantization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when quantizing is appropriate or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'select', which is a state-changing UI operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., valid track/device indices), or error behavior. For a tool that manipulates UI state, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-line purpose statement and two parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easily scannable with the Args section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple selection tool with an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks information about expected behavior on invalid indices or whether it returns a confirmation, but given the output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description defines both parameters with clear, meaningful semantics: 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based index of the device in the track's device chain'. Since the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates and adds essential context (zero-based indexing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Select') and the resource ('a device on a track in Ableton's UI'). This distinguishes it from other device-related tools like delete_device, set_device_parameter, and move_device, which have different verbs and purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related selection tools like get_selected_device or set_selected_track, nor does it provide context for when UI selection is needed. The simple 'select' purpose implies some usage, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the basic action but does not disclose potential requirements (e.g., whether Ableton Link must be enabled first), side effects on session transport, or any error conditions. This is a bare action description with no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and a minimal Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it quick to parse and directly relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean setter, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and documents the parameter. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks any mention of when to use the tool or dependency on Ableton Link state, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema provides only a boolean 'enabled' with no description, the tool description explicitly explains the parameter: 'True to enable Start/Stop Sync, False to disable it.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and leaves no ambiguity about the boolean's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable Ableton Link Start/Stop Sync,' which is a specific action on a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'set_ableton_link_enabled' by explicitly targeting the Start/Stop Sync sub-feature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like set_ableton_link_enabled or any preconditions, making it unclear when an agent should choose this over other link-related setters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('only provided values are changed') and specifies units (beats) and zero-based indexing, which are useful. However, it omits potential constraints or interactions between loop and marker values, and says nothing about error handling or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a useful note about optional parameters, and a clean Args list. No unnecessary repetition or fluff; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral detail (partial updates), units, and indexing. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It lacks explicit constraints between loop start/end and markers, but is otherwise adequate for correct usage in most scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter (track_index, clip_index, looping, loop_start, loop_end, start_marker, end_marker) is explained with meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, including units and zero-based semantics. This fully qualifies the parameters for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set clip loop and marker properties' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool's function from other clip setters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_clip_properties or set_clip_fades.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and summary imply its purpose, there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool references. The note about optional parameters is behavioral, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only states the action without mentioning whether the change is persistent, undoable, or requires specific track states, leaving the agent unaware of any mutation consequences beyond the direct assignment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a compact argument list. Each line earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and ranges. However, it omits usage context such as whether the clip must be in the session view and any validations that might occur, leaving minor gaps that an output schema may or may not fill.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description details every parameter with meaning and valid ranges (zero-based indices, coarse -48–48 semitones, fine -50–50 cents), fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage and adding value beyond the bare schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('pitch transposition of an audio clip'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling clip modifiers like set_clip_gain or set_clip_warping by focusing on pitch transposition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither explains prerequisites (e.g., clip must be in session view) nor contrasts with other set_clip_* tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect on volume, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), return values, validation behavior, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a structured Args block. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then provides context and parameter details without redundancy or unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the basic meaning and effect, but it lacks usage context, prerequisites, and return behavior. The output schema exists (per context signals), but the description does not reference it or explain what the tool returns, leaving some ambiguity about the operation's outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explicit parameter semantics: zero-based indexing for track_index and clip_index, and the 0.0-1.0 range for velocity_amount. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates and adds meaning beyond the input schema, though the explanations are concise.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set the velocity-to-volume amount for a clip.' The second sentence explains the effect ('Controls how much note velocity affects clip volume'), making it specific to this clip property and distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_clip_gain or set_clip_pitch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when wanting to control how note velocity affects volume, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No mention of when not to use or how it compares to related clip settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation (solo/unsolo) but does not cover side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be a drum rack), or error behavior. It adds no context beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single action sentence followed by a concise Args block. Every line earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose before parameter details. No redundant or vague text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a straightforward setter with an output schema present, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the action and all parameter semantics, but lacks usage context and behavioral side-effect disclosure, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero descriptions for all four parameters, and the description fully compensates by documenting track_index and device_index as zero-based, pad_index as MIDI note number (0-127), and solo as True=solo/False=unsolo. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Solo or unsolo a specific drum pad in a drum rack.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_drum_pad_mute by focusing on solo state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_drum_pad_mute or get_drum_pads. The description only states what the tool does and lists arguments, without any explicit or implicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully explains the volume-to-dB mapping, but it does not disclose side effects, valid input range, clamping behavior, or whether changes apply immediately. This is incomplete but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded. The single command sentence is immediately clear, and the parameter detail directly follows without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter setter, the description is largely complete: it states the operation and meaning of the input. It lacks a note about valid ranges or usage scenarios, but the output schema exists and complexity is low, so the missing guidance is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only a bare number type with no description. The description fully compensates by defining the meaning of volume values, including concrete reference points (0.0 = -inf dB, 0.85 = 0 dB, 1.0 = +6 dB).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('master track'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_track_volume, but the focus on the master track is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_volume or set_master_pan. There are no context clues, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the direct effect (enable/disable punch out) but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or impact on ongoing recordings. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no unnecessary content. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with a clear parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean setter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action and the parameter. It lacks some context around usage and side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it does not feel severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so clearly by explaining the 'enabled' parameter: 'True to enable punch out, False to disable.' This adds meaning beyond the raw boolean type and fully clarifies the parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Enable or disable punch out for recording.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool set_punch_in, though the resource name makes the difference obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (changing punch out state for recording) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_punch_in or get_punch_state. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, making it a minimum viable usage description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral detail beyond the action itself. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or any requirements such as the scene existing before invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence and an args list. Every element is necessary and contributes to understanding, with no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two integer parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly. However, it omits information about valid value ranges or behavior for invalid indices, leaving a slight gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by specifying that scene_index is zero-based and that color_index refers to the Ableton color palette. This fully compensates for the schema, which has no property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set the color of a scene by color index' with a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_color and set_clip_color by explicitly naming 'scene'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only explains the parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and parameter meanings; it does not mention side effects, whether the change is reversible, permission requirements, or any potential impact on playback or other track settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose statement. Each line serves a purpose, and the argument documentation is clearly formatted. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters, the description is nearly complete: it explains both parameters and the operation. However, it lacks usage context or mention of the output schema (if any), and it does not clarify behavior for invalid track indices or state values. Still, given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds critical meaning beyond the input schema: track_index is explicitly 'Zero-based index of the track' and state is defined with concrete values (0=In, 1=Auto, 2=Off). The schema itself only provides type and title, so this detailed parameter explanation fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set the monitoring state of a track.' It specifies the exact resource (track) and the attribute (monitoring state), distinguishing it from other set_track_* sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The reader must infer from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter meanings but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether soloing a track unsolos others), error handling, or prerequisites like the track existing. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using a single sentence for the action and a clear list of arguments. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers the essentials but lacks behavioral context like side effects and preconditions. With no annotations, it is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement. It is not as sparse as a one-liner, but it could add value by describing expected behavior on invalid input or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description effectively compensates by explaining both parameters: track_index is 'Zero-based index of the track' and solo is 'True to solo, False to unsolo.' It adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the boolean semantics and index base. Minor gap: no mention of range constraints for track_index.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the solo state of a track' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_mute and set_track_arm. The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description; it is clear this tool is for setting solo state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. No when-to-use context is provided beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' and documents parameters. It does not mention whether notes are appended or replaced, how invalid values are handled, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Key information is present and logically organized, but there is redundancy: the note dict structure is described twice, once in prose and once in the Args section. This adds unnecessary length. A more concise version would merge these descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., append vs replace, validation, error behavior). Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the operation's effects and limitations are not fully specified. It provides adequate but incomplete contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and notes is an array of empty items, but the description thoroughly documents every parameter: track_index, clip_index, and the full structure of note dicts including types and ranges for all fields. This far exceeds schema capabilities and is essential for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add MIDI notes with extended properties to a clip' clearly states the verb (add), resource (MIDI notes to a clip), and distinguishes this from the sibling add_notes_to_clip by emphasizing 'extended properties'. It further enumerates the note properties, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'with extended properties' establishes a clear context for when to use this tool—when you need properties like probability, velocity_deviation, release_velocity, or mute. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action ('clear') but does not disclose additional details such as irrevocability, effect on undo history, or behavior on clips without envelopes. The action is simple, so the lack of extreme detail is acceptable, but slightly more context would improve this dimension.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the Args section presents parameter details in a clean, readable format. No filler or redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states the action, explains the meaning of both parameters, and the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. It does not elaborate on edge cases, but the low complexity and schema support make this adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter names and types (0% description coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that both track_index and clip_index are zero-based indices. This adds important semantic guidance beyond the schema, helping the agent correctly construct arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (clear) and resource (all automation envelopes in a clip), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from related tools like 'clear_clip_envelope' by explicitly targeting 'all' envelopes, which is a meaningful scoping detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over, for example, 'clear_clip_envelope' or other clip-editing tools. The description simply states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites (e.g., whether it works on session clips only, or if it is undoable). For a destructive mutation, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple mutating operation with an output schema. The description covers the action and parameters sufficiently. However, it could be more complete by noting that it only affects session clip slots (given the context of clip index) or whether the change is undoable. Given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, the current description is nearly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by providing brief but useful explanations: 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based index of the clip slot.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and clarifies indexing convention.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove all MIDI notes from a clip.' It uses a specific verb ('remove'), resource ('clip'), and scope ('all MIDI notes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_notes_from_clip or add_notes_to_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when-not to use it, but the clarity of the action makes the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameters, but does not mention what happens if the clip slot already contains a clip, whether it overwrites, errors conditions, or any side effects. For a creation operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. It achieves maximum efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details about preconditions (e.g., existence of the track, whether the slot must be empty) and edge-case behavior, making it incomplete for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with meaningful details: zero-based indexing for track_index and clip_index, and the default 4.0 beats for length with an explainer 'one bar at 4/4'. This adds clear value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new MIDI clip in a track's clip slot' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_arrangement_midi_clip by implying session clip slot usage, and the parameter list reinforces the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: the tool is for creating a MIDI clip in a track's clip slot. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_arrangement_midi_clip) or any exclusions, so it lacks direct comparison with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the fold/unfold mapping (1=fold, 0=unfold) but does not mention side effects, error cases, or what happens if the track is not a group track. The behavioral detail is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by an args list. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded, though the args block could be slightly more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fold/unfold operation, the description covers the required inputs and their meaning. However, it does not describe the return value or potential failure conditions. An output schema exists, but its content is not shown, so some uncertainty remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: track_index as zero-based index and fold as 1/0 mapping to collapse/expand. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fold or unfold a group track' with a specific verb and resource. The tool name aligns directly with this action, and there is no sibling tool that performs folding, so it is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for collapsing or expanding group tracks, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for a straightforward operation, but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey safety and behavioral traits. It discloses the return values (count, message, button count) but does not mention side effects or error behavior when no dialog is open. Since 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the operation. It could note behavior when no dialog is present, but the provided info is enough for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current Ableton dialog box'), clearly differentiating this from sibling tools like press_current_dialog_button which acts on the dialog. It also lists the specific data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_application_info or press_current_dialog_button. The purpose is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, not the return format, possible errors, or that it is a read-only operation. Compared to the calibration example for a read-only tool without annotations, this lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose statement and a parameter definition. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter, the description provides the essential information: what it retrieves and the parameter to specify. The presence of an output schema covers the return value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage. Minor omission: no mention of possible edge cases (e.g., invalid track index).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly defines the sole parameter ('track_index: Zero-based index of the track'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property name and type, effectively compensating for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('clips in the arrangement view for a track'), and clearly identifies the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_scene_clips' or 'get_clip_slot_status', which operate in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: when you need clips in the arrangement view for a track, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'get_scene_clips' for session view). The context is clear but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not confirm that this is a read-only operation, describe the return format, or mention potential errors. 'Get' implies read-only but does not explicitly state it, and no additional behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured: the main action is stated first, followed by usage examples and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the lack of annotations, this is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). The description covers the core purpose and parameter format sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain return values, but the output schema can handle that, and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% schema coverage). The description compensates well by explaining that path is a slash-separated hierarchy and giving two concrete examples ('instruments/Operator', 'drums/Kit-Core 909'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (browser items), and provides example paths that clarify the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_browser_tree, which likely handles the full hierarchy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives practical guidance on how to format the path ('Use slash-separated paths like...') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_browser_tree or load_instrument_or_effect. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description makes clear this is a read-only status query and reveals it returns 'status and configured sources.' However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, whether the index needs to be built first, or what 'configured sources' entails, and with no annotations the description carries the full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete to convey its purpose and return scope. It lacks some usage context, but that is addressed separately and the simplicity of the tool supports this score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per baseline for no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and its purpose statement suffices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'local docs index status and configured sources,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs, get_docs_chunk, and get_docs_page, which handle searching or retrieving documentation content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking the status before searching or any exclusions, leaving the usage context entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get... state' with no information about return format, performance characteristics, or whether the state is real-time. While 'get' implies non-mutating, the lack of any behavioral context is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It says exactly what the tool does in the fewest words possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter signature and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this instead of the related set_ableton_link_enabled or set_tempo_follower_enabled tools, which the sibling list suggests are part of the same workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a read operation for two specific resources: Ableton Link and Tempo Follower state. It uses the verb 'Get' and names the exact resources, distinguishing it from sibling setter tools like set_ableton_link_enabled.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it. It does not mention that this is the getter counterpart to the linked setter tools, nor does it provide any context for querying state. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It accurately states a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what 'all devices' includes, whether hidden devices are returned, or behavior with invalid return_index. For a simple getter this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, with one clear sentence plus a parameter definition. No wasted words or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a straightforward single-parameter getter with an output schema provided. The description explains the essential input and outcome. It omits error handling details, but the output schema covers return values, making it adequately complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only an integer return_index with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining 'Zero-based index of the return track', adding meaning about the parameter's offset and purpose. This is clear and valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get a list of all devices on a return track', which clearly names the action (Get) and the resource (devices on a return track). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_return_device_parameters and get_master_track_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_return_track_sends or get_track_info. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses return values and the 0.0-1.0 range, adding transparency. However, it does not describe behavior for out-of-bounds indices or whether the operation is a snapshot versus continuous, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three compact sections: purpose, args, returns. Every sentence carries necessary information; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. It lacks a brief note on usage context or validity constraints, but the feature set is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly defines return_index as 'Zero-based index of the return track', which adds essential meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema. It also clarifies the return values, compensating for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get the current output meter levels for a return track' with a specific verb and resource. The name itself includes 'return_track', and the description distinguishes it from sibling get_track_output_meter and get_master_output_meter by targeting return tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_track_output_meter or get_all_track_meters. It simply describes its function without exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description states the action but does not disclose side effects, whether the view can be reshown, error behavior for invalid view names, or whether it changes focus. As a mutation of UI state, more behavioral transparency is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: an action statement and an argument list. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter hide operation, the description covers the action and parameter values. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, without annotations, it does not fully cover behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by listing valid view names ('Browser', 'Arranger', etc.), but it is not exhaustive ('such as'), leaving ambiguity about other accepted values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Hide') and the resource ('an Ableton UI view'), and lists examples of valid views. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_view and focus_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to hide an Ableton view, call this. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like show_view for showing or focus_view for focusing, nor any prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that redo mutates song state, that it depends on a redo stack, or what occurs when no action is available to redo. The safety and failure profile is left entirely to the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficiently worded sentence with no filler. The key verb and object are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter action with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and invocation context sufficiently. It omits edge-case behavior like an empty redo stack, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. It is complete enough for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Redo') and clearly identifies the target ('the last undone action in Ableton Live'). It immediately distinguishes this from the sibling 'undo' operation and other unrelated tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: you would use this after an undo action to reverse it. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or what happens if there is no undone action. Lacks an explicit alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects like whether the groove replaces an existing one, whether it affects session or arrangement clips, or any error conditions (e.g., invalid indices). The parameter descriptions add context but not behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear leading verb phrase and an args list that is easy to scan. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity, and the description covers the core action and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context such as side effects or usage constraints, and does not reference related tools for comparison. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. Overall, it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully compensates for the zero schema coverage by explaining each parameter's meaning, including zero-based indexing and what each index refers to. This is valuable beyond the bare schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a groove from the groove pool to a clip.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_groove_amount and get_groove_pool by targeting a specific clip with a groove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the action, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_groove_amount or remove_clip_groove. It lacks context about prerequisites or situations where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameters without revealing any side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, and the format is immediately parseable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter, and the description covers its main action and parameters. However, it omits context such as whether the clip must already exist, whether it works on arrangement clips, or any error behavior. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description could have been more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index is zero-based, clip_index is zero-based and refers to a clip slot, and name is the new name. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the name of a clip.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like set_clip_color or set_clip_loop, all of which target different clip properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (rename a clip by providing track, clip slot, and name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is obvious, but context for when to choose it is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the action without disclosing side effects, persistence, or prerequisites. It does not describe what happens when the amount changes or any related state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a clear one-line action and a minimal Args section. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the description covers the action and parameter range adequately. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Lacks only broader context about when to apply the global groove, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a meaningful range (0.0 to 1.0) for the amount parameter, which is not present in the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not explain behavior on out-of-range values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it sets the global groove amount, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_groove and set_groove_property.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The term 'global' implies project-wide scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_groove_property or set_clip_groove. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('Set the selected scene') without explaining side effects, whether the scene is launched, or any session state changes. This is a minimal operation, but additional context (e.g., 'does not trigger playback') would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and to the point, front-loading the tool's purpose and then documenting the parameter. No wasted words, well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what to pass and what the action is. However, it could briefly differentiate itself from fire_scene (which triggers a scene) to fully round out the selection context, slightly limiting completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clearly explaining the parameter: 'Zero-based index of the scene to select.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Scene Index' title, which is valuable for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') with a resource ('selected scene in Ableton Live'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_selected_scene (get vs set) and fire_scene (select vs trigger). It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a straightforward use case—changing the current selection—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fire_scene or get_selected_scene. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or selection implications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that color_index refers to Ableton's color palette, providing useful context, and implies mutation by 'Set'. However, it does not disclose error behavior, bounds for indices, or side effects, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a concise Args block. Every line adds value; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (two simple integer parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the required inputs and their semantics. Minor omissions are valid ranges for indices, but these are runtime details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is essential. It explains track_index is zero-based and color_index is an Ableton palette index, adding meaning beyond the bare integer type. This is helpful, though it could specify valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Set the color of a track'), and the parameter definitions for track_index and color_index clarify the exact scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_color, set_scene_color, and set_clip_slot_color by explicitly focusing on tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided—there is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_properties or set_track_name, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only defines what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it stops all playing clips, but does not mention side effects such as whether transport continues, whether clip positions reset, or whether it affects only session view (though 'session' is implied). The behavior is minimal and lacks context beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no filler or redundant words, and every word contributes to understanding. Perfectly sized for a simple 0-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 0-parameter command with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies 'session' to scope the action and clearly conveys what happens. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying that it does not stop transport (since 'stop_playback' exists as a sibling), but given the simplicity, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and the description adds no conflicting information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Stop all playing clips in the session.' It identifies the verb (stop), the resource (all playing clips), and the scope (in the session). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'stop_clip' (single clip) and 'stop_playback' (transport stop).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to stop all session clips, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'stop_clip' or 'stop_playback'. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible via undo, or how invalid indices are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one clear sentence followed by a minimal Args block. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters well. However, it omits behavioral caveats such as irreversibility or error behavior, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters as 'Zero-based index' values, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates and provides clear guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a device from a track's device chain'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_master_device and delete_return_device by specifying the track context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for deleting a device from a regular track, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance. Usage is implied by the description and argument names, but no exclusions or decision rules are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the zero-based index convention, which is helpful, but it does not mention potential side effects, irreversibility, or error conditions. The word 'delete' implies destructiveness, but no additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded. The first sentence states the main action, and the second sentence provides the parameter detail. There is no extraneous information, making it very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete operation, the description is complete. It covers the action and parameter, and the presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described. Minor gaps remain in usage guidance, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only specifies the parameter type (integer), but the description adds a clear definition: 'Zero-based index of the device to delete.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and leaves no ambiguity about the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('device from the master track's device chain'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_device' (likely for other tracks) and 'delete_return_device'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_device' or 'delete_return_device'. It does not mention exclusions or provide context for selection, relying solely on the tool name to imply its scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add 'when reachable' (indicating conditional behavior) and 'actionable warnings', which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or how it handles errors—typical expectations for a status tool. Thus it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise list of return elements. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless status tool, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return data. The mention of 'actionable warnings' and 'when reachable' provides sufficient context for expected behavior. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which helps the agent understand the output context. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('local install state and remote-script capability status'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by listing exact return fields (package version, client transport version, local install status, remote-script capability info, actionable warnings), making its scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_livemcp_info' or 'get_application_info'. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. Users must infer usage from the name and general status-checking context, which is insufficient per the rubric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return fields (output_meter_level, output_meter_left, output_meter_right) and the value range (0.0 to 1.0), giving clear expectations about the tool's output behavior. It does not mention side effects, but as a getter this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then present the return values clearly. Every sentence adds meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with no inputs and an existing output schema, so the description does not need to explain return formats in detail. It adequately covers the core action and outcome. It could benefit from noting how it differs from sibling meter tools, but that is not essential for this simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description trivially satisfies this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current output meter levels for the master track,' which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_track_output_meter, though the phrase 'master track' provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used when you need master output metering, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_track_output_meter or get_all_track_meters. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals sentinel value (-1.0 for tempo), Live version conditional fields, and a full inventory of returned data. It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the purpose, followed by a compact list of returned fields and a single argument explanation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with one parameter, the description covers the core needs: it names the resource, explains the parameter format, and enumerates returned properties. It doesn't discuss error behavior for invalid indices, but an output schema exists and the behavior is predictable for such a tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a type and title for scene_index, with 0% description coverage. The description adds the crucial clarification that it is a zero-based index, which is essential for correct usage and not derivable from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get properties of a specific scene' and lists the exact properties returned. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling get_scene_info, but the detailed property list makes the specific resource unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies use when retrieving scene properties, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to other scene-related getter tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'currently selected' conveys dependence on selection state, but it does not mention what happens when no parameter is selected or whether any side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise, front-loaded sentence clearly states the tool's purpose with no redundant wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists to define return values, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple getter. No further context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource, 'currently selected Ableton device parameter.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_selected_track or get_device_parameters by focusing on the currently selected parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that a device parameter must be currently selected, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for when to use another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (index, name, color), which is helpful, but it does not mention behavior when there is no selected scene (e.g., error or null) or explicitly state that it is read-only beyond the 'Get' verb. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the return value details, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters and a described return value, the description is complete. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structures. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It correctly implies that invocation requires no arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get information') and identifies the exact resource ('currently selected scene'). It lists the returned data (index, name, color), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_scene_info (which likely requires a scene index) and get_scene_properties (which may return broader properties).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over get_scene_info or how it complements set_selected_scene. The phrase 'currently selected' implies a context, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter behavior such as defaults and the time_span=None fallback, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or destructive warnings beyond the verb 'Remove'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A concise one-line summary followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters and no annotations, the description provides adequate coverage of the operation and parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It lacks some behavioral caveats like undoability or interaction with existing clip data, but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's meaning, including zero-based index semantics, pitch/time ranges, and special handling of time_span (None uses clip length). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool removes MIDI notes from a clip within a pitch and time range, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool remove_notes_extended, which likely performs a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's purpose implies when it should be used (removing notes in a range), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this version versus alternate tools like remove_notes_extended, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It fully states the action (enable/disable) but adds no extra context about side effects, idempotency, or requirements. This is minimal but adequate for a simple setter, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one clear purpose sentence plus a single-line Args explanation. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-boolean toggle tool, the description covers the necessary information: what it does and how to use the parameter. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so no further description is needed. It could mention the relationship with link-state tools but is otherwise complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly defines the boolean parameter: 'True to enable Link, False to disable it.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this completely compensates for the schema's lack of meaning, fully explaining the parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable Ableton Link' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_link_state and set_ableton_link_start_stop_sync_enabled by focusing solely on the master enable/disable toggling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It simply states the action without indicating contexts, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over related tools like get_link_state. Usage is only implied by the purpose, not explicitly conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify gain units (e.g., dB or amplitude), acceptable ranges, whether it applies to session vs. arrangement clips, or any side effects. This leaves critical information for safe invocation unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the core operation, and the output schema exists. However, it lacks contextual details like gain units and the specific clip type (session vs. arrangement), which could be inferred from 'clip slot' but are not explicitly stated. Overall, it is adequate but with minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explicit docstring explanations for all three parameters (track_index, clip_index, gain), which fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies zero-based indexing and the meaning of 'gain' as a value to set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the gain of an audio clip' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling set_* tools by targeting clip gain specifically, and the Args list reinforces the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The use case is implied by the name and first line, but there is no mention of how to choose this over other clip or track gain setters, nor any contextual prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a mutation ('Set') and documents the value range, but does not mention side effects, clamping behavior, or undoability. Adequate for a simple setter, but not rich in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by an Args block that clearly documents the parameter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the description covers the target (master track) and the parameter semantics thoroughly. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It lacks only explicit alternative guidance, which is already captured in the usage_guidelines dimension.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'pan' as a number with no description. The tool description fully specifies the meaning and range (-1.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 as center), completely compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the specific resource ('panning of the master track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_pan by explicitly targeting the master track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus set_track_pan or other mixer controls. There is no mention of scenarios where this should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation of song scale and mentions the Live 12+ requirement, but it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if both parameters are null, or whether invalid scale names cause errors. This is a significant gap for a setter with no annotation safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clearly formatted Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings, and an output schema exists (not shown), so return values are not required. However, there are gaps: it does not explain the behavior when both arguments are null, whether scale_name is validated, or how the operation interacts with existing scale settings. These ambiguities make it incomplete for a fully unambiguous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed semantics for both parameters, including the MIDI note mapping for root_note and concrete examples for scale_name. Since the schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), this is essential and well done. It could be improved by listing valid scale names or noting defaults, but it covers the main meaning effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the song scale root note and/or scale name, which is a specific action on a specific resource. The '(Live 12+)' qualifier adds important version context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with tracks, scenes, or clips, none of which address song scale.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended use clear: to modify the song scale. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the resource scope ('song scale') is unambiguous and no sibling tool directly overlaps. The version note also implicitly guides when the tool can be used (Live 12+).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and params, but omits any side effects, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist), or idempotency. As a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, starting with a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args section. No fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains both parameters and the action, and the existence of an output schema means return values need not be described. However, it lacks any note about invalid indices or error behavior, which would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining that track_index is zero-based and mute accepts True/False with clear meaning. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the mute state of a track' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_solo by using 'mute'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_track_solo or set_track_volume. No exclusions or alternate suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Set the panning' with no disclosure of side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether it overrides automation. Similar to the update_drive example, this is a mutation tool lacking behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with a single purpose statement followed by clearly formatted parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with only two fully described parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential information. Minor gaps like handling of invalid indices or interaction with automation exist, but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: track_index is zero-based, and pan has a detailed range from -1.0 to 1.0 with 0.0 as center. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the panning of a track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_track_volume and set_master_pan by specifically targeting panning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its clear statement of function, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusionary contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the value range (0.0 to 1.0) and indexing semantics (zero-based, corresponds to return track order), which are useful. However, it does not mention side effects like automation overrides, error handling for invalid indices, or whether the change is immediate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args listing. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema data. The structure is easy to parse and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, all parameter meanings, and value constraints. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists, so that burden is reduced. Lacking are usage guidelines and edge-case behavior, but overall it is sufficient for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles with zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains track_index as zero-based source track, send_index as zero-based send matching return track order, and value with an explicit range from 0.0 to 1.0. Every parameter is meaningfully documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Set the send level from a track to a return track.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_return_track_send by specifying the source and destination, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of return tracks) or scenarios where this should be preferred over similar send-related tools. The only contextual information is the parameter descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful context on volume units (0.0 = -inf dB, 0.85 = 0 dB, 1.0 = +6 dB) but does not mention clamping, side effects, or interaction with automation. This is moderate transparency for a simple setter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a one-line purpose plus a two-item argument list. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the action before details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and units. It lacks usage guidance and edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: track_index is zero-based, and volume includes a scalar-to-dB mapping. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the volume of a track, which distinguishes it from other track-related tools like set_track_pan or set_master_volume. The verb 'set' plus resource 'volume of a track' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as set_master_volume or set_track_pan. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (stop playback) but does not clarify side effects, such as whether recording is stopped or if the action is idempotent when already stopped. This basic disclosure is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action. No additional return-value explanation is required because the output schema is present, and the tool's function is self-evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('playing the Ableton Live session'), clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_playback and continue_playing by indicating transport control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_all_clips or stop_clip. The description does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without comparison to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary action (creating a new scene containing currently playing session clips), but does not mention potential side effects like whether existing clips are stopped or whether the new scene is inserted at a specific position. The description is minimal and lacks deeper behavioral context, but it does state the core behavior clearly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that state the action and clarify it. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete, clearly stating what the tool does and the context (session clips). It does not explain edge cases like what happens if no clips are playing, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description therefore does not need to explain parameter semantics; it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: capturing currently playing clips into a new scene. The verb 'Capture' and resource 'currently playing clips into a new scene' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from related tools like 'create_scene' (which likely creates an empty scene) and 'capture_midi' (which captures MIDI).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you want to create a new scene from currently playing session clips. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'capture_midi' or 'create_scene', nor does it note conditions like requiring playing clips or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the basic action and parameter constraints, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or track is invalid), or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a well-structured docstring with a clear intent and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three well-documented parameters, and an output schema exists (though not shown). However, given no annotations, the description lacks details on error conditions, side effects, and what the operation means for existing clips at the target position. It covers the mechanics but not the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents all three parameters: track_index as zero-based and must be an audio track, file_path as an absolute path, and position in beats. This fully compensates for the schema having no descriptions, providing essential meaning beyond names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('audio clip in the arrangement view') with a clear source ('from an audio file'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_arrangement_midi_clip and create_session_audio_clip, which differ by clip type or view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for arrangement view audio clips and requires an audio track (stated in the track_index argument). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the destructive action and provides zero-based indexing details, but it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to subsequent devices, or any errors for invalid indices. This is adequate for a simple delete but lacks deeper context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an args list. Every sentence adds essential information, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with an output schema, the description provides the essential details. It could be slightly more complete by noting implications (e.g., cannot be undone, check return track devices first), but it does not feel severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines each parameter clearly with their zero-based nature (return_index and device_index). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw integer type, though it could include constraints like valid ranges or expected bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Delete') and a precise resource ('a device from a return track's device chain'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_device or delete_master_device by focusing on return tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the tool's name and description (for return tracks), but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this over delete_device or delete_master_device, nor any prerequisites like checking the device chain first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It specifies zero-based indices and the boolean enabled semantics, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., audio impact), index validation, or whether the track is a session track (vs. return/master), limiting full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, with a one-line summary followed by a clear Args list. No fluff; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple enable/disable tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks clarification on track types (e.g., session vs. return/master), expected error behavior for invalid indices, and whether the device must exist. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details, but these gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining each parameter: track_index as zero-based, device_index as zero-based, and enabled as boolean with explicit True/False meaning. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable a device on a track' with a specific verb and resource, and the Args section reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_device_parameter, which focus on parameter changes rather than device on/off state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description: use this when you want to enable or disable a device. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., set_device_parameter) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not state that explicitly or mention any caveats. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly sized for such a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents the return fields), the description is nearly complete. It does not explain what 'average' and 'peak' refer to (e.g., the measuring window), but this is unlikely to mislead an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-level detail. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description accurately reflects that no arguments are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Ableton application's average and peak CPU usage'). This uniquely distinguishes it from siblings, which are mostly about clips, tracks, devices, or transport.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
A clear use case is implied (monitoring CPU usage), but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. Since no sibling tool serves the same purpose, the need for exclusion is low, but a more explicit 'use this when' could improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: return values are in beats, and it only works for audio clips. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the clip is not an audio clip) or any side effects (though it's a read operation). This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by return information, a constraint, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns and the main constraint (audio clips only). It could optionally mention behavior for non-audio clips, but the output schema and simple scope make this complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: 'track_index' and 'clip_index' are zero-based indices. This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain integer types. It clearly defines both required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the fade in and fade out lengths of an audio clip.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_fades. It also mentions the return values explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage constraint ('Only available for audio clips') but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is a getter for fade parameters, there is no mention of when a user should prefer this over get_clip_properties or other related getters. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a read-only getter, the description implies no side effects, but with no annotations it doesn't explicitly disclose that or mention error behavior for invalid track indices. It focuses on return values, which is useful but leaves some ambiguity for edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear list of return values and an Args section. Every sentence provides needed information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential return data and parameter semantics. It doesn't address potential errors or prerequisites, but for this straightforward tool, it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'track_index: Zero-based index of the track.' This adds critical semantic meaning (zero-based) that the schema lacks, though it's brief.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get group and fold information for a track.' It enumerates specific outputs (foldable, group membership, fold state, group track name), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_track_info or fold_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context implies this tool is for retrieving group/fold status of a track, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_track_info. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Returns') but does not explicitly state whether master/return tracks are included, nor disclose any side effects or performance considerations. The ambiguity around 'all tracks' leaves room for misinterpretation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by the return value specifics. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter getter, the description covers the essential return contents, and an output schema exists to detail the structure. The only gap is not specifying whether 'all tracks' excludes master or return tracks, but the sibling tool names hint at that distinction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids explaining nonexistent parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the mixer state of all tracks, listing specific properties (volume, pan, mute, solo, arm). It distinguishes from siblings such as get_master_mixer_state by focusing on all tracks in the session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this retrieves mixer state for every track, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_master_mixer_state or get_return_track_output_meter. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets parameters and doesn't mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or safety. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but for full transparency it should explicitly say that the operation doesn't modify any state or mention potential failure cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a terse parameter list. No fluff or redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, and the layout is front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose and parameters clearly. The only shortfall is the lack of behavioral details (like error conditions), but for a simple getter with good parameter info, it's nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that both parameters are zero-based indices, and clarifies that return_index refers to the return track and device_index to the device within that track's chain. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all parameters of a device on a return track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_device_parameters and get_master_device_parameters by explicitly targeting return tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for devices on return tracks, and the parameters specify which return track and device. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the name and wording make the usage straightforward enough. No exclusions are stated, but the intended use is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists return fields and the conditional nature, but does not disclose behavior for edge cases such as no selected device or non-Max device, or whether it might return null or an error.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second enumerates the returned data. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides a clear overview of the returned information. It is largely complete, though adding edge-case behavior would make it fully robust.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately contains no parameter information since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource (selected Live device) with a condition (when it is Max for Live). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_selected_device, which would handle any selected device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied (for Max for Live devices), but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like get_selected_device exist, so explicit guidance would be more helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns take lane names and arrangement clips, which is useful. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., read-only), prerequisites (e.g., track must have take lanes), or error behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with two sentences and an Args line. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, achieving high efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description is adequately complete. It covers the parameter and the essence of the result. However, it lacks explicit mention of edge cases or the read-only nature, which would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds critical semantics to the single parameter by specifying 'Zero-based index', which is not present in the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, this additional detail helps the agent correctly supply the track_index, though it could offer more context on how to identify the target track.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets all take lanes for a track, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('take lanes'). It also specifies what is returned ('take lane names and arrangement clips'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_take_lane or create_take_lane_midi_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a read-only getter for take lanes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'Get' and describes the return values (output meter level, left/right channels), but it does not mention error behavior, value units, or explicitly confirm that no state is modified. This leaves some ambiguity, though the operation is inherently safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences plus a one-line Args section, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and then neatly specifies the parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It explains the tool's purpose, the parameter's meaning, and the general shape of the return value. No additional context is required for an agent to use it appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the track_index parameter, but the description fully compensates by explicitly stating 'Zero-based index of the track.' This is critical information for correct usage and is more detailed than the schema alone provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves output meter levels for a track, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource as the track's output meter. It further details that it returns left and right channel values, distinguishing it from related tools that target return tracks, the master track, or all tracks at once.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_return_track_output_meter, get_master_output_meter, or get_all_track_meters. It only implies usage for a specific track index but does not state that this tool is limited to one track or suggest when to prefer a broader meter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (no side effects implied) and lists valid view names. However, it does not disclose error handling, return format, or any special behaviors such as whether the view must be open to check. Adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one clear purpose statement and a parameter explanation with examples. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary function and structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the purpose and parameter meaning, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. Since an output schema exists, the return value is presumably defined elsewhere, so its absence here is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the view_name parameter (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by listing example values ('Browser', 'Arranger', 'Session', etc.), giving the agent concrete context for what to pass. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get whether an Ableton view is currently visible.' This is a specific query about view visibility, distinct from sibling tools like show_view or hide_view. The examples of view names further clarify the resource being queried.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: it is used to check if a view is visible. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_view_state or focus_view. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior—navigating to the next cue point—but does not disclose edge cases such as behavior at the last cue, wrap-around, or what happens when no cue exists. This is a modest gap for a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and target with no superfluous words. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage. However, it does not address boundary conditions or behavior when no next cue exists, which slightly limits completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Jump') and the target ('next cue point (locator)'), which is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like jump_to_prev_cue and jump_to_cue. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jump_to_cue or jump_to_prev_cue. It lacks any 'when not to use' or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention what happens if there is no previous cue, whether playback state is affected, or any other side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it optimally concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter navigation command, the description is largely complete: it states the action and target. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no previous cue) and any usage prerequisites, so it is not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('jump') and resource ('previous cue point (locator)'), clearly stating the action. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jump_to_next_cue' and 'jump_to_cue' by specifying the direction and target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for navigating to the previous cue point. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the simple actionable phrase implies when it should be used, and sibling tool names provide additional orientation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter, but omits potential side effects like whether the device replaces existing devices on the master track, whether it appends to the chain, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is one line and directly clarifies the parameter. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, target, parameter meaning, and discovery method. It lacks deeper behavioral context (e.g., chain behavior, error cases), but for a simple load operation this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a title and type for 'uri', with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining the parameter: 'The browser URI of the instrument or effect to load.' It also explains how to obtain valid URIs. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Load a device onto the master track') and the method ('using its browser URI'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like load_device_on_return and load_instrument_or_effect by explicitly targeting the master track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path to discover available URIs.' This tells the agent how to obtain the required input. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the master-track target is clear enough to imply when to use this over load_device_on_return.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it replaces an existing device), error conditions, or prerequisites such as the need for the return track to already exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-organized: a single opening sentence stating the action, a brief discovery hint, and a clearly formatted argument list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main inputs and the URI discovery step, but it omits important contextual details such as whether the return track must already exist, what happens if the index is invalid, and any side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description leaves notable gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains both parameters: 'Zero-based index of the return track' and 'The browser URI of the instrument or effect to load'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Load a device onto a return track') and the method ('using its browser URI'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling loading tools like load_device_on_master by explicitly targeting return tracks. The additional reference to browser discovery tools reinforces its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage guidance by instructing the agent to use get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path to discover available URIs before invoking this tool. This establishes a clear prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with loading tools for other track types, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool mutates the metronome state (enable/disable), but it does not mention any side effects, required conditions, or return value behavior. For a simple boolean setter, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus an Args block for the one parameter. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy, making it highly scannable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter, clear purpose), the description is nearly complete. An output schema exists, so no need to explain return values. It could mention what happens if the metronome is already in the desired state or any related side effects, but for most use cases this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'on' parameter: 'True to enable, False to disable.' This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean type, fully covering the single parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enable or disable the metronome.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_tempo or set_time_signature by targeting the metronome specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when the user wants to control the metronome, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide context like prerequisites. Since there are no direct alternative tools for metronome control, the implied usage is acceptable but not clearly articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the basic action and includes parameter details, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist, Live 12+ only), or error behavior. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds valuable semantic details. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with 3 parameters, the description covers all parameters and notes the Live 12+ constraint. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that this is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section compensates fully by explaining scene_index as zero-based and giving examples for numerator/denominator (4 for 4/4). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the time signature for a specific scene' with a specific verb and resource. It specifically mentions 'scene' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_time_signature' that likely sets the global time signature. The version constraint 'Live 12+' adds further precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by noting 'for a specific scene' and the 'Live 12+' version requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'set_time_signature' or other scene-related tools. There is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance, though the scene-scoped context is a clear signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set' without explaining side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the need for valid routing names. It does not mention what happens on invalid input or any operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a cleanly formatted Args list. No filler or redundancy, 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the necessary usage context: what it does, how to find valid values, and the parameters. It doesn't mention error handling, but given the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, this is a minor gap. It could briefly note that invalid routing names may cause an error, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema properties), so the description's per-argument explanations add significant value. It clarifies that the index is zero-based, names are display names, and the channel is optional, which is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('input routing for a track'), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from the related tool 'set_track_output_routing' and complements 'get_track_routing'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on how to discover valid routing names by referencing 'get_track_routing'. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a setter, the context is clear and it points to the relevant sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'toggle' discloses a state flip, and the phrase 'for the selected device' implies a prerequisite. However, it does not explain what happens if no device is selected, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. The output schema covers return values, but this behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly names the action and target. It could add context about integration with browser workflows, but that is not necessary for basic selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggle') and the specific resource ('Ableton's browser hot-swap mode') scoped to 'the selected device.' This precise wording distinguishes it from other toggle tools like toggle_presentation_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when wanting to toggle hot-swap mode for a selected device, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and prerequisites are only hinted at via 'for the selected device.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but gives no details about side effects (e.g., whether the original clip is preserved, whether existing arrangement content is overwritten), permissions, or edge cases. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action. The argument list is structured and each line earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with three parameters, the description adequately explains the action and arguments. An output schema likely covers return values, so no missing information there. It could be slightly more explicit about the destination track (same as source) but that is implied by track_index.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, meaningful documentation for all three parameters: track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and time is in beats. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds essential context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Duplicate a session clip to the arrangement view' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_clip (session-only) and duplicate_scene by explicitly mentioning the destination as arrangement view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The contextual purpose is clear: use this when you need to place a session clip into the arrangement. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the session-to-arrangement direction implies a distinct use case compared to other duplicate tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (major, minor, bugfix version) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free. Since it's a getter, the read-only nature is implied but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the return values without any wasted words or redundant detail. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool—zero parameters and a clear output schema (though not shown explicitly)—the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing additional details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description need not provide additional parameter semantics. The description adds value by explaining the return structure, which is beyond the parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies 'Ableton Live application version info' as the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_application_cpu_usage and get_livemcp_info by precisely stating it returns version information. The listed return values reinforce the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool—whenever version info is needed—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. It lacks the explicit comparisons seen in high-performing tools, but the purpose is self-evident enough for basic inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return fields (playing_position, is_playing, is_triggered) and explains that track_index and clip_index are zero-based. It does not explicitly mention side effects or error behavior, but for a read-only getter, this provides adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then lists return values, and finally presents the two parameters. No extraneous information or redundant phrasing is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does, what it returns, and the meaning of each parameter. It is complete for the tool's complexity and matches the output schema's information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that track_index and clip_index are zero-based indices, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definition. This is particularly helpful for the target domain where indexing is often ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Get the current playback position and state of a clip.' It specifies the resource (clip) and the returned information (playing_position, is_playing, is_triggered), which distinguishes it from other clip-related tools like get_clip_slot_status or get_clip_properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Get', which is insufficient for guiding an AI agent in selecting this tool over other clip introspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return values, including conditional behavior ('if a clip is present'), but does not disclose error handling for invalid indices, side effects, or whether it is strictly read-only. The 'get' name implies safety, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return summary, and a clean Args list. No redundant or filler content, with important details front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema present, reducing the need to enumerate return fields in detail. The description covers purpose and parameters well, though it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if indices are out of range) and assumes knowledge of Ableton clip slots. Overall, it is sufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: 'track_index: Zero-based index of the track' and 'clip_index: Zero-based index of the clip slot'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw integer type, clarifying indexing and purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'gets detailed status of a specific clip slot', specifying the resource and the type of information (playing, recording, trigger state, color, clip details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clip_properties or get_clip_playing_position by focusing on the broader status of a clip slot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents but does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), what happens if the device is not a Drum Rack, or whether any side effects occur. The zero-based indexing info is useful but is more parameter semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a purpose statement, a return summary, and a parameter list. No wasted words; structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with an output schema, and the description summarizes what is returned. It mentions the Drum Rack requirement and the key fields, making it sufficient for most uses. However, it could be slightly more complete regarding error cases or the structure of the output, but the output schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides concise explanations for both parameters, specifying zero-based indexing and clarifying that device_index refers to a drum rack device. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves drum-chain-specific properties from a Drum Rack, listing the specific returned data (name, mixer values, note/choke settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drum_pads and set_drum_chain_property.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when drum chain properties are needed but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit comparison to get_rack_chains or set_drum_chain_property, though the purpose makes it inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly states this is a 'Read' operation and lists returned properties, but does not disclose potential errors, edge cases (e.g., non-MIDI clips), or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a line listing return fields, and two brief parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned properties, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly address when to use this vs. the similar get_notes_from_clip, but the name and content imply the distinction. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides types and titles with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that track_index is 'Zero-based index of the track' and clip_index is 'Zero-based index of the clip slot,' giving precise meaning to both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read all MIDI notes from a clip with extended properties,' which specifies the action (read) and resource (MIDI notes from a clip). It also distinguishes from sibling get_notes_from_clip by listing extended properties such as probability and release_velocity, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool reads extended note properties, which implies a use case when those properties are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of get_notes_from_clip, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return value (record_mode: True if armed, False otherwise) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the return type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds the return value detail. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists) and the clear description of the boolean return, the description is sufficiently complete. There are no complex behaviors or constraints to document.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets whether arrangement recording is armed, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_record_mode, which is the setter, and get_session_record_status, which concerns session record status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to know the armed state of arrangement recording. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as clarifying that this is for arrangement not session recording, though the name makes that somewhat clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns the list of sends on a return track with their names and values'), but does not mention error conditions, side effects, or any required permissions. For a read-only getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a follow-up sentence describing the return value, and a clear Args section. No filler or redundant statements are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior. It is mostly complete, but it could add usage context (e.g., when to use this vs sibling tools) or edge-case behavior for an invalid index, which would make it fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only the type and title for return_index, but the description explicitly explains it as the zero-based index of the return track in the Args section. This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level description and adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the send values for a return track.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like set_return_track_send (which sets a send) and get_return_tracks (which retrieves return track list). No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the tool returns send values for a return track, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_track_routing or set_return_track_send. There is no discussion of exclusions or prerequisites like ensuring the return index is valid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does detail the return fields and conditional availability (e.g., 'if tempo_enabled', 'if available'), but it doesn't mention what happens with an invalid scene_index or confirm it is a non-mutating read operation, though the name 'get' implies it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, starting with the purpose and using a clear 'Returns' section followed by an 'Args' line. Every word is informative with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description covers the primary behavior, return fields, and parameter semantics. It falls short of explaining error handling or explicitly recommending when to use this tool, but the output schema compensates for return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the type and title for scene_index with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates with an explicit definition: 'Zero-based index of the scene,' which adds crucial meaning that isn't present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific scene') and enumerates the exact return fields (name, color, tempo, time signature, is_empty, clip_count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_clips or get_scene_properties by specifying the exact payload.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving scene details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related siblings like get_scene_properties or get_scene_clips. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states what is returned but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. The verb 'Get' implies safety, but the description does not add context about permissions or lack of mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists return fields efficiently. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature (0 params, getter) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. It does not need to explain return format in detail since the output schema likely handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description focuses on return values, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Ableton Live session state'), and lists the exact data returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools by covering session-wide state rather than specific elements like tracks or scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a broad session snapshot but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or list exclusions. It lacks guidance like 'Use get_track_info for detailed track data' or 'This returns all session-level state in one call.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly notes that freezing/flattening cannot be triggered via the API, marking this as a read-only status check. It also clarifies that the tool returns two boolean values (frozen status and freezability). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and structured into clear sections (Args, Returns, Note). Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return values, and a key limitation (read-only API). Since an output schema exists, further return value detail is not necessary. It is sufficiently complete for a simple getter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no description for track_index, so the description fills the gap by stating 'Zero-based index of the track.' It also explains the return semantics, which helps the agent understand both input and output meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('freeze status of a track'), then further specifies the return values ('whether the track is frozen and whether it can be frozen'). This distinguishes it from other track-related tools like get_track_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred context, exclusions, or alternative getters. The read-only note gives some context but does not directly address tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether playback stops), out-of-range behavior, or prerequisites like existing cue points. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a single sentence plus a parameter definition. Every word is necessary, and the key information (index, zero-based) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It could benefit from error-handling details, but the core use case is adequately addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining 'index' as zero-based, which is not in the schema and is critical for correct use. It clearly explains the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'jump' and resource 'cue point by index', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like jump_to_next_cue and jump_to_prev_cue that navigate relatively. It precisely states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you know the specific index, as opposed to next/prev jumps. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the operation and parameters but does not disclose side effects, such as whether loading overwrites an existing device, whether the track must already have a device chain, or any error behavior. As a mutation tool, this lack of safety/state-change detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a pointer to discovery tools, and a clean Args section. No redundant or extraneous content; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite discovery steps, and parameter meanings. However, it omits details about device slot placement, failure modes, or track requirements, which are relevant given the lack of annotations. Still, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward load operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles (Uri, Track Index) with zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explicitly defining track_index as 'Zero-based index of the target track' and uri as 'The browser URI of the instrument or effect to load.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Load an instrument or effect onto a track using its browser URI.' The verb 'load' is specific, the resource (instrument/effect) is named, and the mechanism (browser URI) is provided. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_device_on_master/return, which target different destinations, and get_browser_tree, which is for discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context by instructing users to use get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path to discover URIs, which is a necessary prerequisite. It does not explicitly compare to alternative loading tools (e.g., load_device_on_master) or state when not to use it, but the guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the required structure of modification dicts and allowed properties, but does not mention error handling, unit specifications, or behavior when notes are not found. This is moderate transparency—more than a minimal statement but lacking crucial operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary sentence, a detailed paragraph on modification dict format, and a clear Args list. It is concise with no filler—every sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the essential usage, it lacks details on units (e.g., pitch as MIDI note number, start_time in beats) and edge case behavior. For a note editing tool, these are important gaps. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input semantics remain partially unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: zero-based indices for track and clip, and modification dicts with pitch, start_time, and properties to modify. It lists properties that can be changed but does not specify units or value ranges, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Modify properties of existing MIDI notes in a clip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip and remove_notes_from_clip by focusing on modifying existing notes. It also enumerates modifiable properties (velocity, probability, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for usage: it targets existing MIDI notes and requires pitch and start_time for identification. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like replace_all_notes or remove_notes_extended. The context is sufficient for basic selection, but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of assignment values (0, 1, 2) and that track_index is zero-based, which clarifies the tool's effect. However, it does not mention potential errors, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a neatly formatted Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics thoroughly. It lacks explicit usage context and error handling, but these are not critical for a basic mutation tool, especially since an output schema presumably exists. The description provides enough to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail. It specifies that track_index is zero-based and enumerates the exact meaning of assignment values (0 = none, 1 = A, 2 = B). This goes well beyond the bare schema, providing essential semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the crossfade assignment of a track.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling track-related setters like set_track_volume or set_track_pan. The naming and description unambiguously identify the tool's role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage context or alternatives are provided. The description implies when to use the tool (when a track's crossfade assignment needs to be changed) but does not discuss prerequisites or contrast with other tools. It's minimally adequate but lacks clear guidance for an agent to know exactly when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly defines the mute parameter as 'True to mute, False to unmute,' which clarifies the behavior. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether the change persists, affects playback, or errors on invalid pads). The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence is informative, and it is front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-change tool with four fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials. It lacks error-handling notes or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only titles with no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing each parameter with meaningful context: track_index and device_index are zero-based, pad_index is a MIDI note number (0-127), and mute is a boolean flag. This goes well beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mute or unmute') and the resource ('a specific drum pad in a drum rack'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_drum_pad_solo. The verb+resource structure makes the purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that this tool operates on drum pads within a drum rack, and the parameter list clarifies the addressing scheme. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_drum_pad_solo for soloing), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a mutation ('set') and specifies valid ranges/mappings for values. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or impact on clips using the groove. Missing context about return behavior, though 'set' implies a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact docstring with a clear first line and an Args block. Every line adds necessary value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly. It lacks some broader context (e.g., prerequisites, side effects, error conditions), but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is reasonably complete. More explicit mention of what the groove is and how it ties to the pool would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully documents all three parameters with exact allowed values, including a mapping for base values and range for amounts. This goes far beyond the schema's bare types and is essential since schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('property on a groove'), and clarifies that the groove is in the groove pool via the 'groove_index' parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_groove and set_groove_amount.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description states what the tool does and lists parameter values, but does not mention when to prefer this over set_groove_amount or set_clip_groove. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the value must be within min/max range and says to use get_return_device_parameters first, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or whether changes are undoable. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a one-sentence purpose, a usage hint, and a clean list of arguments. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description works for a simple setter, but lacks details about failure modes and what the output schema represents. However, the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain returns. It could benefit from noting that this tool is specific to return tracks, though the name already conveys that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are individually described with zero-based index semantics and a range constraint for value, which is critical for correct usage. Schema coverage is 0%, so this description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a parameter value on a device on a return track'), distinguishing it from similar tools like set_device_parameter and set_master_device_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear guidance to call get_return_device_parameters first to discover parameters and ranges, establishing a proper workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives for normal/master tracks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Set the output routing' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on playback. This is a mutation tool, and the lack of such context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-line purpose, a helpful pointer to get_track_routing, and a clean Args section. Every sentence provides value, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and how to discover valid names. It does not explicitly address alternatives, but the overall guidance is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index is 'Zero-based index of the track,' routing_type_name is 'Display name of the desired output routing type,' and routing_channel_name is 'Display name of the desired output routing channel (optional).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set the output routing for a track,' which is a specific verb and resource. The word 'output' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_track_input_routing,' and referencing 'get_track_routing' for names further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by instructing the user to use 'get_track_routing' to see available routing type names, which guides correct usage. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool, but the name itself differentiates it from input routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It does note a key behavioral trait (resuming from current position instead of restarting), which adds value beyond the tool name. However, it does not address edge cases such as behavior when already playing, or whether it differs from start_playback in that scenario.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core action and its distinguishing nuance. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no complex effects, output schema present), the description provides adequate context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention behavior if already playing, but this is a minor gap for such a basic transport control.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('continue') and resource ('playback'), and clarifies the scope ('from the current position without restart'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like start_playback, which would initiate playback, likely from a different position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without restart' conveys the intended use case: resuming from a paused or stopped position rather than restarting from the beginning. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior—triggering all clips in the specified scene row—but does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether it stops clips in other scenes, interacts with playback state, or requires specific quantization settings). This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus an Args block, giving the essential action and parameter meaning without any filler. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines scene_index as an integer, but the description adds that it is a 'Zero-based index of the scene,' which is essential for correct usage. It also clarifies that the parameter identifies the scene row, providing necessary context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as 'Fire (launch) a scene', with a specific resource and scope, 'triggering all clips in that row.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip, which targets a single clip, and other playback controls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context of what the tool does when used (launching a scene triggers all clips in that row), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like fire_clip or stop_all_clips. However, the scene-specific language makes the usage context understandable without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly lists all possible return fields, notes 'if available', and specifies audio-only additions (file_path, ram_mode, gain, etc.), giving a strong behavioral contract. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only getter this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a property list and an Args section. Although the property list is long, it serves the purpose of making 'comprehensive' concrete. Each element adds value, and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return format, but it still enumerates the returned fields. It covers parameter semantics and conditional data. It could be improved by noting behavior for invalid indices, but overall it's complete enough for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides type and title for the two parameters. The description adds the critical zero-based indexing semantics for both track_index and clip_index, which is essential for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive properties of a clip'), and differentiates itself from narrower sibling getters by enumerating the full property list. This makes it unambiguous what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides parameter usage (zero-based indexing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_clip_slot_status or get_clip_fades. The 'comprehensive' scope implies use for full property retrieval, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (track name, type, mute/solo/arm state, volume, pan, clip slots, devices), which is a transparent account of its read-side behavior. It does not explicitly declare it read-only, but the verb 'get' and return list imply a non-mutating operation. This is adequate, though it could mention error behavior for invalid indices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, enumerates return contents in a clear sentence, and then documents the argument. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not describe error cases or edge conditions, but these are less critical for a read-only getter, and the output schema likely details the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter, track_index, with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that track_index is 'Zero-based index of the track', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get detailed information about a specific track', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly lists the returned fields (track name, type, mute/solo/arm state, volume, pan, clip slots, devices), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_tracks_info (all tracks) and get_selected_track (selected track). This makes the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'specific track' and requiring a zero-based index, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_all_tracks_info or get_selected_track. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the explicit list of return values (including 'if any' for detail clip) gives concrete behavioral expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, which is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word contributes to the description. It avoids redundancy with the input schema and annotations (which are absent).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing the four return fields. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the related sibling getters, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly omits parameter details and instead focuses on the output, which is appropriate for a parameterless getter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'current view state' and enumerates the exact returned components (selected track, detail clip, draw mode, follow song state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_selected_track or set_draw_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use when a caller needs an overview of the current view state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_selected_track, get_selected_device, or set_follow_song. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important behavior: the bridge may automatically fall back to a smaller response when full enumeration times out on larger patchers. It also clarifies the effect of named_only. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only listing that is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the following sentences add necessary detail about parameters and fallback behavior without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple list tool, the description covers the main purpose, the key parameter, and a timeout fallback. However, bridge_session_id remains unexplained, preventing full completeness. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains named_only=True but says nothing about bridge_session_id, leaving that parameter ambiguous. It adds partial meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists boxes in the attached patcher. The verb 'list' and resource 'boxes' are specific, and 'attached patcher' distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_box_attrs or create_box.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: to list all boxes in the current patcher. It also explains the named_only parameter and mentions an automatic fallback behavior on large patchers. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the purpose of warping ('allow the clip to follow the session tempo') and adds availability context. It does not disclose failure modes or side effects beyond that, but this is a simple boolean setter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, with a one-line purpose, a short explanatory sentence, and a clearly formatted Args list. Every sentence contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and all parameters. It could mention error behavior for non-audio clips, but this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides per-parameter semantics for all three arguments, including zero-based indexing and the boolean meaning. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable warping on an audio clip,' which is a specific action with a resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_clip_warp_mode by focusing on enabling/disabling rather than setting warp mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly notes 'Only available for audio clips,' providing an exclusion criterion. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide more granular when-to-use guidance versus sibling warping tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that enabling records parameter changes during playback, which is the core behavior. No hidden side effects are hinted, and the simple boolean nature is clearly conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the main action in the first line, followed by a brief elaboration and a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the action, the meaning of the parameter, and the behavioral consequence. It does not need to document return values due to the output schema, and no prerequisites or further context are obviously missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'enabled' parameter beyond the schema's bare title. It explains 'True to enable, False to disable' and connects it to the real effect ('parameter changes during playback are recorded as automation'), which is helpful for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable session automation recording', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_session_record' (session recording) and 'get_session_automation_record' (querying state), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the effect of enabling (parameter changes during playback are recorded) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention that 'get_session_automation_record' exists for querying state. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (set arm to true/false) but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track type), or what happens if the track cannot be armed. It is minimally transparent for a simple setter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three lines, front-loaded with the main verb and then args, with no filler. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with a boolean parameter, the description covers the purpose and both parameters completely. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. No major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by defining track_index as zero-based and arm as true-to-arm/false-to-disarm, adding semantic meaning beyond mere titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: setting the record arm state of a track, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from global record operations like set_record_mode and track-specific setters like set_track_solo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for arming/disarming a track, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_session_record or trigger_record, nor any exclusions. Could be more explicit about applying to individual tracks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action plainly (displaying a message) and does not contradict any annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the message persists, replaces an existing status, or returns a value. The simple nature of the tool mitigates this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and focused, with a single sentence stating the function and a brief parameter breakdown. Every word earns its place, and the structure is conventional and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description is complete without explaining return values. It covers the action and parameter clearly, leaving no significant information gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explicitly documenting the 'message' parameter as 'Text to display in the status bar', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Message' title. This fully explains the parameter's purpose and value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Display') and names the exact resource ('message in the Ableton Live status bar'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinctly different from sibling tools, which focus on views, playback, or device control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (displaying a status message) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. For a simple utility, the context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit 'when to use' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the clip is 'empty' and requires a MIDI track, but does not mention side effects such as whether an existing clip at the position gets overwritten, error behavior, or any prerequisites beyond the track type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All parameters are explained, the purpose is clear, and an output schema is present so return values are covered. The only gap is the lack of side-effect/overwrite information, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it defines track_index as zero-based, specifies that start_time and length are in beats, and notes the MIDI track constraint. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a new empty MIDI clip in the arrangement view.' This uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_session_audio_clip or create_take_lane_midi_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: the clip is for the arrangement view, must be a MIDI track, and parameters are detailed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over similar creation tools like create_clip or create_session_audio_clip, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the creation action but does not disclose potential side effects such as whether existing clips are overwritten, whether take lanes must already exist, or any permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple create operation but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The operation is a simple creation with no nested objects, and the output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description covers all parameters and the action. It does not state prerequisites like lane existence, but the tool's simplicity and clear parameter documentation make it largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an Args list that explains each parameter: track_index, take_lane_index, file_path, and start_time. These explanations add meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, clearly defining zero-based indexing, absolute path, and beat-based timing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create an audio clip inside a take lane from an audio file.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like create_take_lane_midi_clip or create_arrangement_audio_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes clear what the tool does and the context in which to use it (creating audio clips in take lanes). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the specific resource make the usage context obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the return structure (dict with 'tracks' and 'master'), the fields per entry (output_meter_level, left, right), and the value range (0.0-1.0). This is useful context beyond the bare function name, though it does not explicitly mention read-only status or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph succinctly explains the return value. No filler or redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and returns. It covers the essential behavioral details without unnecessary elaboration, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics since there are none to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get output meter levels for all tracks and the master track.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_output_meter or get_master_output_meter, which target individual tracks or the master only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool's scope (all tracks + master) but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of per-track alternatives. While sibling tool names suggest alternatives, the description offers no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, making the usage context only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a list of tracks with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a non-mutating read operation, nor does it address potential side effects, performance implications, or error behavior. For a 'get' tool, the risk is lower, but transparency is still partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the return fields and the use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only getter, this description is complete. It specifies what it does, what data it returns, and when it is useful. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe the return structure. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly does not attempt to explain any. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; the schema already trivially covers all (non-existent) parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action ('Get summary information') and targets 'all tracks at once', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_track_info which handles individual tracks. The list of returned fields (name, type, color, mute, solo, arm, etc.) further clarifies the scope and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Useful for getting a full session overview without making separate calls per track.' This implies when to use it (full overview) and contrasts with per-track calls. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key behavioral detail by defining length as the time position of the last event, which clarifies exactly what is returned. This goes beyond a simple restatement of the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value's meaning. The sibling tools show this is one of many arrangement-related getters, and the description is complete for its scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The input schema confirms an empty object, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-related information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'total arrangement length in beats', clearly distinguishing it from sibling getter tools like get_arrangement_clips and get_arrangement_overdub. The second sentence further clarifies the semantic of 'length' as the time position of the last event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose itself implies usage when the total arrangement length in beats is needed. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains what 'overdub enabled' means behaviorally ('recording merges with existing clips') and implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Returns.' No side effects are stated, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. The parenthetical explanation about recording merges is useful without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the state's meaning and return semantics, and no additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter clarification is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the current arrangement overdub state and specifies the exact meaning: 'Returns whether arrangement overdub is enabled (recording merges with existing clips).' This distinguishes it from the sibling set_arrangement_overdub and other record-state getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: it is a getter for the arrangement overdub state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like set_arrangement_overdub or get_record_mode, and no exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return format (list with index, name, time) but does not state side effects (likely none), prerequisites, or edge cases such as empty lists. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values, yet it still gives a high-level summary. There are no parameters or complex behaviors, so the description covers the tool's purpose and output sufficiently. It is complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none are needed. There is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all cue points (locators) in the song' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes the return contents (index, name, time), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_locator, delete_locator, and jump_to_cue. This is a precise retrieval operation with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the full list of cue points is needed, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion criteria. That said, the tool's purpose is self-evident and it is not easily confused with write/jump operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return content (raw + display values, is_enabled) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or potential side effects. As a 'get' tool, read-only is implied but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a clear purpose sentence, a comparison with an example of display values, and a minimal but sufficient Args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple structure with two integer parameters and an output schema exists. The description provides enough context for correct invocation, including the zero-based indices and the distinction from get_device_parameters. It does not describe the return format in detail, but that is partially covered by the output schema and the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes an 'Args' section that clearly defines both parameters, including the crucial zero-based indexing. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all parameters of a device with both raw value and human-readable display value,' giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_device_parameters by explicitly noting the addition of is_enabled and display_value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description names the closely related alternative get_device_parameters and clarifies the key difference, which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not scenarios, stopping short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return structure but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, or any prerequisites. As a simple getter, this is somewhat transparent but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, a second sentence describing the return value, and a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool of this simplicity, the description adequately covers purpose, returns, and parameters. It could improve by explicitly noting that it applies only to regular tracks (not master/return), but this is inferable from sibling tool names and the overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explicit semantics for both parameters (zero-based indices for track and device chain), which is entirely absent from the input schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, this fully compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all parameters of a device on a track, and specifies the return contents (device name and parameter list with name/value/min/max). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_master_device_parameters and get_return_device_parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: it is used to fetch device parameters for a specific track. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope (regular track vs. master/return) is inferable from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies the returned fields (pad index, name, MIDI note, mute/solo state) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, define 'visible', or describe error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, with a one-line summary, a return clause, and a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the core usage: what it returns and how to target the device. It lacks failure-mode details and a precise definition of 'visible', but these are not critical for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description gives explicit semantic meaning to both parameters: 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based index of the drum rack device'. This goes well beyond the schema's integer types and titles, making the invocation unambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all visible drum pads') and the target resource ('a drum rack device'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_drum_pad_mute/solo, which mutate pads, and get_drum_chains, which retrieves chains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: the tool is for retrieving visible drum pads from a drum rack device. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavioral trait: it returns whether punch_in and punch_out are enabled, implying a read-only inspection. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it sufficiently covers the simple read behavior. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a getter with no parameters, those are unlikely and the output schema covers the return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Get the punch in/out state') and then clarifies the return value. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter getter, the description is complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. The presence of an output schema covers the structural details of the return value, so the description does not need to elaborate further. Sibling tools that set punch state provide additional context for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially covered (100%), and the description correctly avoids mentioning any parameters since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the punch in/out state and explicitly specifies what it returns (whether punch_in and punch_out are enabled). This distinguishes it from sibling setters like set_punch_in and set_punch_out, and the 'get' verb makes the operation obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied by the name and description: use it to retrieve punch state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, no mention of typical scenarios, and no exclusion of when not to use it. The description is minimal on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the returned fields (chain name, mute, solo, etc.) and the device requirement. This goes beyond a simple tautology. It doesn't mention error behavior or edge cases, but for a read-only getter, the provided behavioral details are solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states the action, then the precondition, return fields, and parameter details follow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple read-only list operation with two parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, prerequisite, returned data, and parameter meanings. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with the output schema providing additional structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: both track_index and device_index are described as zero-based indices, with device_index further qualified as the rack device. This adds meaning that the schema lacks, though it could also mention bounds or validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb and resource: "Get all chains in an instrument or effect rack device." This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_drum_chains by explicitly stating the device type (instrument or effect rack).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear precondition: "The device must support chains (i.e. be a rack)." This tells when it is applicable, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like get_drum_chains. The guidance is useful but incomplete for disambiguating from similar chain-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the phrase 'all return tracks' adds scope context (no filtering or partial results). It does not mention error behavior or what happens when no return tracks exist, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: first states the purpose, second lists the returned properties. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (0 params) and an output schema is present, so the description need not explain return structure beyond what is already structured. It fully covers the scope and the properties included, making it complete for the agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to augment. The description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all return tracks'), and explicitly lists the properties returned (name, mute, solo, volume, pan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_all_tracks_info, which cover other track types or broader scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need information about return tracks. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_return_track_sends for send levels' or 'not for audio output meters'. This leaves usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get information') and enumerates the exact fields returned (index, name, type, mute/solo/arm state, color), providing meaningful transparency beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the subject (selected track) and enumerates the output fields. No additional context is necessary for this simple, well-scoped tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and no compensation is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets information about the currently selected track, using the specific verb 'Get information' and resource 'selected track'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_track_info (which likely targets a specified track) and get_selected_scene/device/parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: it is for the currently selected track, not for arbitrary tracks (those would use get_track_info). However, there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendation, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return value ('session_automation_record (True if enabled)'), which is the key behavioral output. It does not go into side effects or errors, but for a simple read-only getter, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the main purpose and then clarify the return format. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the operation performs a simple state query and returns a boolean-like value. There is no missing context that would impede correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly clarifies that no arguments are needed by focusing entirely on the operation and return value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('whether session automation recording is enabled'), making its purpose immediately clear. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like 'set_session_automation_record' (which sets rather than gets) and other getter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. However, the usage is implied by the nature of a no-parameter getter: it simply checks the current state. This is adequate but lacks the explicit guidance found in higher-scoring descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (reachability, state, bridge availability, next steps) and implies a read-only summary, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, permissions, or failure conditions. The verb 'Summarize' mitigates concern, but more detail would be needed for a higher score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one sentence listing return items. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides useful detail without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke it or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids param info since the input schema is empty and all schema-description coverage is 100% vacuously.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('whether Ableton is ready for flagship plugin validation'). It lists the key outputs (remote reachability, track/device state, Max bridge availability, next steps), distinguishing it from generic info tools like get_livemcp_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear context: use this when checking readiness for plugin validation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident from the phrasing 'whether Ableton is ready for flagship plugin validation'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the range-based behavior and parameter constraints, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the operation is undoable, what happens with out-of-bounds indices, or whether it is destructive beyond the obvious 'remove' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise purpose statement, a note on required parameters with usage guidance, and a clear Args list. Every sentence contributes information, with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, all parameter semantics, and how to span full ranges. It doesn't explicitly mention prerequisites like valid track/clip indices or that the clip must be a MIDI clip, but these are implied. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args list that explains each parameter, including valid ranges (e.g., from_pitch 0-127, pitch_span 1-128) and how to use them for full-span selection. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('MIDI notes from a clip') and a precise scope ('within an explicit pitch and time range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_notes_from_clip and clear_clip_notes, which lack the range qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states that all four range parameters are required and provides explicit instructions for spanning all pitches/time. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to use this over other note-removal tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: atomicity, the remove-then-add sequence, and the note dictionary format. It does not mention error handling, undo implications, or side effects on clip length, but the core operational behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary paragraph and an Args list. It repeats the note fields in both places, which is slightly redundant, but overall it is scannable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the operation, all parameters, and the nested note dict. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. The only notable gap is the ambiguous requirement of the 'velocity' field, but otherwise it is sufficient for an AI to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains track_index and clip_index as zero-based, and details the notes parameter structure. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the prose lists velocity as optional, while the Args section includes velocity without that qualifier, potentially confusing an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Atomically replace all MIDI notes in a clip.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_notes_to_clip, remove_notes_from_clip, or clear_clip_notes by emphasizing full replacement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case by stating it replaces all notes in one atomic operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough to select this tool over related note-manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the zero-based indexing and the range requirement for value, which are useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or what happens if the device/parameter doesn't exist or the value is out of range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a practical usage hint. The Args section is structured and free of redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the prerequisite and parameter semantics effectively. With an output schema present, it needn't describe return values, and it's sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool, though it doesn't address error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's 'Args' block explains all three parameters with semantic detail that the schema lacks: zero-based indices and the min/max range constraint. Since schema coverage is 0%, this fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Set'), the target ('a parameter value on a device on the master track'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the master track. It also references the companion get_master_device_parameters tool, reinforcing its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a specific prerequisite ('Use get_master_device_parameters first') which tells the agent when and how to prepare. However, it does not explicitly contrast with set_device_parameter or set_return_device_parameter, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: passing 0 or a negative value clears the tempo and the scene inherits the song tempo. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention edge cases like invalid scene_index.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear explanation of the clear behavior, and a bulleted args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with only two parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: setting and clearing tempo. The output schema is present, so return values don't need explanation. It lacks edge-case error handling, but overall it's sufficiently complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It clearly explains that scene_index is zero-based and tempo is in BPM or -1.0 to clear. This gives complete semantic meaning to both parameters, which the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the tempo for a specific scene' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_tempo (song tempo) and set_scene_time_signature by focusing on scene tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to set or clear a scene's tempo) and explains the clear behavior, but it does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives like set_tempo. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect but does not mention that undo is a mutating operation, that it may be irreversible, or that the undo stack could be empty. This leaves some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to select and invoke it correctly. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Undo the last action in Ableton Live' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'redo' and other mutation commands. It states exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after an undesired action to reverse it, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the inverse sibling 'redo' is obvious from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the trigger (manual parameter changes) and the scope ('re-enables all overridden automation'), which is an important behavioral detail. It does not mention reversibility or potential side effects, but for a simple tool with zero parameters, this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the main action front-loaded and the explanation kept short. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the cause of overridden automation and the tool's global effect. It lacks a few details such as whether it affects all tracks or is limited to the current arrangement, but the phrase 'all overridden automation' largely covers this. The description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema offers no semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by outlining the tool's effect. Given the 0-parameter baseline of 4, this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Re-enable automation that was overridden by manual parameter changes.' It uses a specific verb (re-enable) and identifies the target resource (overridden automation), distinguishing it from related tools like trigger_back_to_arrangement by explaining the exact scenario.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'When you manually adjust an automated parameter, the automation is overridden.' It implies this is the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that value must be within min/max range and that indices are zero-based, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors when indices are invalid, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on playback. This is a moderate level of transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, adds a usage hint, and then presents an Args list with each parameter explained. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter with four scalar parameters, no enums, and an output schema (implied). The description covers the purpose, prerequisite workflow, and parameter semantics completely, making it sufficient for the given complexity. The lack of explicit return-value description is mitigated by the existing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all four parameters: track_index, device_index, parameter_index, and value, including zero-based indexing and the value range constraint. This completely explains each parameter's purpose and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a specific parameter value on a device' with a specific verb and resource. The Args section further clarifies it's for a track's device chain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_master_device_parameter and set_return_device_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs 'Use get_device_parameters first to discover available parameters and their ranges,' providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly exclude alternative setter tools for master/return devices, but the parameter names (track_index, device_index) imply the intended scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides full behavioral clarity by stating the effect (enabling/disabling punch in) and the meaning of the enabled parameter. It does not disclose potential side effects, but for a simple boolean setter, the action is transparent enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one sentence and an args list. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean setter with an output schema, the description provides all essential context: the purpose, the parameter meaning, and the recording context. Return values are not explained because an output schema exists, making this sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the single parameter: 'True to enable punch in, False to disable.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic boolean title 'Enabled,' fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Enable or disable punch in for recording,' specifying the exact action and resource. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool set_punch_out by referencing 'punch in' specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in recording contexts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like set_punch_out or get_punch_state. No when-not or alternative tool comparison is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the note dict structure and that the clip must exist, but it does not explicitly state whether existing notes are preserved or if any other side effects occur. The word 'Add' implies appending, but this is not confirmed. Given the mutation nature of the tool, more explicit side-effect disclosure would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a main sentence, note format explanation, usage guidance, and parameter list. However, the note dict fields are repeated in the 'Args' section ('each with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute') after already being listed in the note format explanation. This minor redundancy costs a point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested note structure) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, note field semantics, and provides guidance on the alternative tool. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: track_index is zero-based index, clip_index is zero-based clip slot, and notes is a list of note dicts with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, and mute. This provides semantic meaning far beyond the bare schema, making the tool usable without additional documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add MIDI notes to an existing clip.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool add_notes_extended by noting when to prefer that alternative for more advanced note properties. This is specific and differentiates it from other note-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer add_notes_extended when you need probability, velocity_deviation, or release_velocity per note.' This directly tells the agent when to use an alternative, effectively establishing the use case for this tool as simple note addition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important quirk: the two-call requirement due to Ableton API limitations, and it warns to verify success via the 'deleted' field. This goes beyond a simple mutation statement and gives the agent actionable knowledge about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a numbered list for the two-call process, and a clear args section. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavior (two-call requirement, checking 'deleted') without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists. It could add error-handling notes or clarify invalid indices, but for this complexity level it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only declares 'index' as an integer with no description, but the description explains that it is the zero-based index of the cue point to delete. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds the critical zero-based detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Delete a cue point (locator) by index,' which clearly states the action (delete), the resource (cue point / locator), and the method (by index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_locator and get_cue_points, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description does not explicitly compare alternatives, it provides crucial usage context by explaining that deletion may require two calls and directs the user to check the 'deleted' field. This tells the agent when and how to invoke the tool correctly, even if it doesn't spell out when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of revealing safe, read-only behavior. It does so by using the term 'get' and 'canonical names', indicating a non-mutating query. The context about being accepted by view control tools adds useful behavioral context, though it does not detail return structure; the presence of an output schema alleviates that need.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and intended integration with view control tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, a clear purpose, and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It specifies the domain (canonical Ableton view names) and the context (used by view control tools), making it complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty with 100% coverage by default, and the description does not introduce ambiguity. This aligns with the baseline for parameter-less tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving 'canonical Ableton view names' and explicitly states their purpose ('accepted by view control tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling view manipulation tools like show_view or hide_view, which act on views rather than listing valid names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: before calling view control tools to obtain valid names. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand it is a lookup helper that complements the view-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently states the tool returns a list and lists the exact fields included. As a read-only getter, this fully discloses the expected output and implies no side effects, which is sufficient for this simple operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, with the primary action stated in the first sentence and supplementary return-value detail in the second. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description adds valuable context by listing the fields in the returned list. It fully covers what the agent needs to know to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description additionally explains what the return value contains, which is more relevant than parameter details here. Schema coverage is 100% by virtue of an empty properties object, so no parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all grooves from the groove pool and enumerates the returned attributes (index, name, base subdivision, etc.). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_groove_properties, which presumably targets a single groove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context: it is a no-parameter retrieval of the entire groove pool. While it does not explicitly compare alternatives, the 'all grooves' phrasing makes the use case obvious, and the zero-parameter schema reinforces that this is meant for full-list retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states what is returned (volume, pan, crossfader, list of devices), making the behavior transparent. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, but 'Get' implies it. It doesn't disclose any side effects, which is appropriate for a getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds information. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter, the description is complete: it identifies the target (master track) and the returned data (volume, pan, crossfader, devices). The presence of an output schema further covers detailed formatting. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mixer state of the master track'), and enumerates the returned fields (volume, pan, crossfader, devices). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mixer_state (which likely targets any track) or get_master_output_meter (which only returns metering).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use it: when you need the mixer state of the master track. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous. A brief note about using get_mixer_state for other tracks would have been helpful for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly lists the returned fields (device index, name, class_name, type, is_active), which is transparent about the output. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but doesn't explicitly state absence of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, first states the action and scope, second lists the return fields. No redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the purpose and the exact content of the return value, which is all the agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain any inputs, and the schema trivially has 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all devices on the master track, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('master track devices'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_return_track_devices and get_master_device_parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is unambiguous: use this tool when you need the list of devices on the master track. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for agent selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read' (non-destructive) and outlines the returned note fields, but it does not disclose units for start_time/duration, velocity range, or behavior on empty clips. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return info and an alternative. The Args section is necessary and brief. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and an alternative. Minor gaps include units and edge-case behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based index of the clip slot.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific action: 'Read all MIDI notes from a clip.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_notes_extended by listing the exact fields, making the tool's scope immediately apparent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use get_notes_extended instead ('Prefer get_notes_extended when you need probability, velocity_deviation, or release_velocity per note'), which implies this tool is for basic note-reading needs. This provides direct comparison and selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that current_cpu_load is returned 'if available' and specifies units for song time/length, adding useful behavioral detail. It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, but the 'get' prefix and read-only nature are strongly implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two focused sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately listing return values. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, and the description also enumerates the return fields, making the tool fully comprehensible. With zero parameters and low complexity, no additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter requirements. The description need not add parameter semantics, and the baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'session metadata', and enumerates the exact fields returned (is_modified, current_song_time, song_length, current_cpu_load). This distinguishes it from sibling getters that focus on single aspects like get_song_time or get_application_cpu_usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is clear: call this when you need composite session metadata. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and the composite nature makes it obvious when to use it over more specific getters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly discloses that enabling causes recorded notes to merge rather than replace. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the primary effect is transparently stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a single clarifying sentence and the parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 1-parameter setter with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and parameter meaning. There is no missing context needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a boolean with no description, so the Args block adds value by explicitly stating True enables and False disables. It also connects the parameter to the recording behavior described above.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'arrangement overdub state', making it distinct from sibling tools like get_arrangement_overdub. The added sentence about merging notes explains exactly what the state controls, further differentiating it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the behavioral consequence of enabling overdub (merging new notes with existing content), giving users the context needed to decide when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple setter this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior and includes parameter ranges (e.g., pitch_coarse -48 to 48). It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but for a setter this is reasonable coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single introductory sentence followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every line earns its place with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 13 parameters and no annotations, the description does a good job covering all parameter semantics and the key partial-update behavior. It doesn't address return values or clip-type applicability, but an output schema exists to cover return structure, making this adequate if slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter including units, ranges, and context (e.g., 'gain: Gain value for audio clips', 'pitch_coarse: Coarse pitch transposition in semitones'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set multiple clip properties in a single call' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from single-property setters like set_clip_name and set_clip_loop by emphasizing the batch capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states that only provided properties are changed and omitted ones are left unchanged, giving clear usage context. It doesn't name alternatives directly but implies use when multiple properties need updating at once, which is adequate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical partial-update behavior ('Only provided properties are changed') and explains value ranges and boolean semantics. However, it does not mention error conditions, undo behavior, or return value beyond what the output schema might cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is essential given the schema lacks descriptions, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter batch setter with no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and the key behavioral nuance. Output schema exists but is not visible, so return value is not explained. Could mention prerequisite like 'track must exist' but the schema already requires track_index.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description provides meaningful semantics for all 8 parameters: zero-based index, value ranges for volume and pan, boolean meanings, and color as a palette index. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set multiple track properties in a single call' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_name by emphasizing the batch capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when setting multiple properties at once ('in a single call') but does not explicitly contrast with individual setter tools. It gives clear behavior for partial updates but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: deactivating all session clip playback, which is a consequential side effect. It also explains the equivalence to the UI button, providing useful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, succinct, and front-loaded with the tool's name. Every sentence adds value, explaining the action, its effect, and its equivalent UI interaction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless action, the description is fully complete: it explains what, how, and the behavioral impact. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers back to arrangement, deactivating session clip playback and returning to arrangement view playback. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the equivalence to Ableton's 'Back to Arrangement' button distinguishes it from any sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (whenever you want to exit session clip playback and return to arrangement view), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear enough for an Ableton user, but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (clip status for every track, including track name, clip presence, clip name/color, and playing/recording/triggered state). It does not describe error cases or explicitly state it is read-only, but the 'Get' verb and return description imply a safe, non-mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second paragraph describes the output content, and the Args section clearly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's purpose, the return payload's key fields, and the parameter's meaning. No additional context, such as edge-case behavior, is necessary for this read-style tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the parameter name and type (integer), but the description adds essential semantics: 'scene_index: Zero-based index of the scene.' This fully explains the meaning and expected format of the parameter, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get all clips in a scene across all tracks.' The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'clips in a scene' with the scope 'across all tracks' make it unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_clip_slot_status, which likely targets a single clip slot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (when you need a comprehensive view of all clips in a scene across all tracks) and explains what data is returned. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns') and describes what data is returned, including the added context of returning all available routing types. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but for a simple getter the disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences plus an args section, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second details return content, and the args section clarifies the parameter. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, including the parameter's meaning, and does not need to describe return values in depth since an output schema exists. The description fully supports correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only an integer field with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does: 'track_index: Zero-based index of the track.' This adds critical meaning (zero-based indexing) that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource ('input and output routing configuration for a track'). It goes beyond the name by detailing the return contents (routing type, channel display names, lists of all available types), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_track_info or set_track_input_routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating it gets routing configuration, and the 'Get' verb clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_track_* routing tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect (creates the envelope if missing) and a failure mode (error on Arrangement clips). It does not mention whether an existing point at the same time gets overwritten, which is a minor gap, but the provided behavior is meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, two behavior notes, and a structured arg list. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this description is complete. It covers purpose, constraints, side effects, and all parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description enumerates all 7 parameters with clear meanings: zero-based indices, time in beats, automation value, and curve default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and leaves no ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Insert an automation breakpoint into a clip's parameter envelope.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clip_envelope or clear_clip_envelope, which read or remove envelope data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'Only works for Session clips' and warns 'Arrangement clips will return an error,' providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. It also mentions that the envelope is created if it doesn't exist, implying a valid use case for first-time automation. However, it does not name alternative tools for similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior that only supplied fade lengths are modified and that the final fade values are returned. It does not discuss side effects or error conditions, but the core mutation semantics are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a single purpose sentence, two behavior sentences, and an args list. Each sentence adds value, and the args list is necessary because schema descriptions are absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, and the description provides all necessary context: target clip, optional fades, update behavior, and audio-clip restriction. It is complete for a moderately simple setter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The inline 'Args' section explains each parameter beyond the schema, including zero-based indexing and beat units, adding meaning the schema lacks. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets fade in and/or fade out lengths on an audio clip, using the specific verb 'Set' and the resource 'audio clip'. It also notes 'Only available for audio clips' to distinguish scope from clip types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides concrete context like 'Only provided values are changed' and applies only to audio clips, giving a clear sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_clip_fades for reading) or provide exclusionary guidance beyond the audio-clip restriction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: enabling RAM mode loads audio into RAM. It also notes the audio-only constraint. It does not mention any side effects or reversibility, but for a simple mode toggle, the disclosed information is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient and directly front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the operation, the effect, the constraint, and parameter explanations. No fluff or redundancy. Ideal formatting for quick agent consumption.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers everything needed: what it does, the audio-only limitation, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are unnecessary to detail. The agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains all three parameters: track_index and clip_index are zero-based, and ram_mode is a boolean toggle. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema, making the tool safe to invoke correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Set RAM mode for an audio clip.' It then explains the effect ('audio is loaded into RAM for playback'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling clip-related tools that target other properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear context: toggles RAM mode for audio clips. It explicitly states an exclusion ('Only available for audio clips'), signaling when not to use it. While it does not mention alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward setter like this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what Follow Song mode does ('auto-scroll to follow playhead'), which adds meaningful context beyond the tool name. It clearly indicates the effect of the boolean parameter. While it doesn't mention side effects or return values, for a simple setter this is sufficient and does not contradict any structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a one-line argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the core function, includes the necessary parameter detail, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single boolean parameter and no complex output requirements, the description is complete. It explains what Follow Song mode is, what the parameter does, and does not need to elaborate on return values since an output schema is indicated. The simplicity of the tool aligns with the brevity of the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the only parameter: 'enabled: True to enable, False to disable.' This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, which just defines the type as boolean. The description fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable Follow Song mode' with a parenthetical explanation of what that mode does ('auto-scroll to follow playhead'). This is a specific verb (enable/disable) plus a resource (Follow Song mode), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you want to control Follow Song mode. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but given there is no sibling tool that manipulates Follow Song, and the tool is a simple boolean setter, the absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is not a significant gap. The usage is effectively self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the locator is always created at the playhead position, not an arbitrary time, which is a critical implementation detail. It could add more about return value or side effects, but for a simple creation tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides a crucial prerequisite in an 'IMPORTANT' note. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema present), the description is complete. It tells the user exactly how to prepare and what to expect, fulfilling all necessary context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. The input schema is empty and fully covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a cue point (locator) at the current playhead position,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_locator and get_cue_points by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the user to call set_song_time first to position the playhead, then call create_locator. This provides a clear prerequisite and ordering, which is essential for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the sampling methodology (evenly-spaced time positions because API doesn't expose breakpoints) and the return flag for missing envelopes. This is valuable beyond what the schema conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief intro, a key caveat, return behavior, and a tidy argument list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a sampling tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, limitations, and parameter details. It explains what happens when no envelope exists, making the tool's behavior predictable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section explaining all five parameters with clear meanings, fully compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. It even adds range and default for num_steps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Sample') and resource ('automation envelope for a device parameter in a Session clip'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that insert or clear envelopes. It also narrows the scope to Session clips, removing ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a key limitation ('Only works for Session clips (not Arrangement clips)') and clarifies the behavior when no envelope exists. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the distinction from insert/clear siblings is evident from the verb 'sample'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the critical behavioral trait that the tool does not actually work due to an Ableton API limitation. This goes beyond any annotations (none provided) and is essential for the agent to avoid invoking a non-functional tool. It also explains the workaround, adding significant value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise statement, an important note, and a clear args list. Every sentence serves a purpose—no fluff—making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two integer parameters, the description covers everything needed: purpose, limitation, alternative, and parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values. The description is complete and actionably informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section explaining each parameter: track_index is 'Zero-based index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index is 'Zero-based index of the clip slot containing the clip.' Since the schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates and provides necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's intended action: 'Remove the groove assignment from a clip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like set_clip_groove and set_groove_property by focusing on removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance by warning that the tool has a known API limitation and recommending a concrete alternative: 'Consider setting groove properties to 0 instead (use set_groove_property...)' This clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alaarab/livemcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server