get_audio_source_beat_times

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'does not edit the clip.' It also discloses a specific behavioral nuance—uses Live's sample-to-beat converter rather than interpolation from sparse warp markers—adding valuable context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a method detail and the non-editing trait. Information is front-loaded and 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 read-only conversion tool with simple parameters fully covered by the schema, the description covers the essential behavior and safety. It does not specify the return format (e.g., an array of beat times), but that is implied by 'positions' and the tool name. Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is nearly complete, though a note on output shape would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (trackId, clipId, sourceSeconds) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither improves nor detracts from schema-provided meaning.

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 ('Read') and resource ('native warped clip-beat positions') for a given input context ('source-audio seconds'), clearly distinguishing it from editing tools like move_audio_warp_marker or analysis tools like analyze_audio_clip. It also clarifies it does not edit the clip, 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.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need beat positions for source seconds) and explicitly notes it does not edit the clip, hinting that it's for read-only timing conversion. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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