get_clip_slot_status

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.