get_audio_clip_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific fields (gain, pitch, warp, markers) and timeline identity, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential side effects, but since it's read-only and simple, 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.

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

The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read gain, pitch, warp, and marker state') and adds the scoping detail (Session vs Arrangement) without any unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what is read and the scope. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return structure, but without an output schema this is not critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both clipId and trackId fully described, including the distinction between Session and Arrangement clip IDs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads gain, pitch, warp, and marker state for a specific Session or Arrangement audio clip, using the verb 'Read' which distinguishes it from write operations like set_audio_clip_state. It also specifies 'one exact' clip, differentiating it from list tools. The mention of timeline identity for Arrangement clips adds precision.

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 when you need the state of a specific clip, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance on choosing this tool over siblings like get_clip_timing or set_audio_clip_state, though the read-only nature is implied.

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