get_available_inputs

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what 'options' entails (e.g., is it a list?), whether any side effects exist, or if the track must exist. The description is too sparse to convey key behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a single parameter line. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundancy 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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe the return value or provide examples, which would help an agent fully understand what to expect. Without an output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 description adds 'The index of the track' for the parameter, which provides meaning beyond the schema's type and title. However, it lacks details like valid range or format. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial clarification earns a baseline of 3.

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 the tool retrieves available input routing options for a track, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('available input routing options'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_available_outputs' by specifying 'input', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_track_input_routing', which might be confused.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_track_input_routing' or other routing-related tools. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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