get_track_freeze_state

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable context about the specific Live 12.4.5 limitation (no setter) and the behavior of errors in future versions. This goes beyond the annotation's general read-only flag, providing version-specific behavioral insight without contradicting it.

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 wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential caveats. 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, read-only nature, and version-specific limitations. It does not specify the return format (e.g., a boolean) but that is likely inferable from the tool name and is not critical. The mention of the setter limitation and UI-only status adds sufficient context for correct 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 already provides a complete description for trackId ('Stable track ID returned by list_tracks'), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('track's native freeze state'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_track_freeze_state by emphasizing read-only nature. The description immediately clarifies the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 notes that freeze/unfreeze remain UI-only and that the setter is not available, implying that this read tool is the appropriate choice and that the setter sibling would error. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling set_track_freeze_state or state 'use this instead of...'—context is clear but not fully explicit.

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