get_available_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get available outputs) but does not mention that it is read-only, what the return format is, or any prerequisites (e.g., track must exist). This is insufficient transparency.

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 very concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by the parameter description. No extraneous words. Could be improved slightly by adding more context, but overall efficient.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the bare minimum. It does not indicate what the output looks like (e.g., a list of routing options) or how it relates to siblings like get_track_output_routing. The presence of sibling tools highlights the need for a bit more context to avoid ambiguity.

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 has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in properties), so the description must compensate. It adds 'The index of the track' which is slightly more than the title 'Track Index', but this barely adds meaning. No additional details like valid range or that it is zero-indexed.

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 retrieves 'available output routing options for a track', using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_track_output_routing (which gets the current routing) and get_available_inputs (which deals with inputs).

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 such as get_track_output_routing or get_available_inputs. The description implies basic usage but lacks context or exclusions.

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