get_track_routing

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.