get_track_info

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 does signal a read operation and enumerates five returned properties, which is useful. It says nothing about error behavior for an out-of-range index, whether the track must belong to the active sequence, or what "target status" means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the returned fields in a compact parenthetical. No filler, nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and the field list does that only partially — "detailed info" plus five named properties is not a full picture, and nothing is said about the shape of the response. Combined with the missing index-base convention, an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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 100% and trackType has an enum, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — trackType and trackIndex are not mentioned at all, and index base/origin is left undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ("Get") plus a specific resource ("a specific track") and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_clip_info or get_project_info. It doesn't explicitly name the track-mutation siblings (set_track_muted, rename_track, solo_track), but the read verb and resource make the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions — it never says an active sequence must exist, nor whether trackIndex is 0-based or 1-based. The agent must infer all usage context 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.