get_track_midi_routing

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds genuine value beyond those by disclosing the edge-case behavior: it 'reports unsupported explicitly when Live does not expose it', and it clarifies the data source is the track's MIDIMap.

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, both informative: the main action is front-loaded and the edge-case behavior follows without repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only getter with complete schema coverage, this is sufficient: it states what is read, the source, and the unsupported-case behavior. Although there is no output schema, the parenthetical content tells the agent what kind of data to expect.

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 schema fully documents the single trackId parameter, including that it is a stable ID returned by list_tracks, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'one track' reinforces scope but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a scoped resource ('one track's native MIDI note routing'), and the exact data covered ('input/output notes and scale transposition'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_midi_routing and get_track_routing without relying on the schema.

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 read-only framing makes the usage context clear: call this when you need a track's MIDI routing information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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