get_arrangement

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the filter semantics (overlap-based range), the accepted time formats, and the cap ('At most `limit` clips are listed') which signals possible truncation of results.

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?

Front-loads the return shape, then the filter semantics, then a concrete example, with no filler sentences. The long parenthetical enumerating clip fields is dense but every item earns its place for an inspection tool.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly documents the return structure, and it covers all four input parameters plus an example. It omits the default limit value (200, visible only in the schema) and any pagination note, leaving minor gaps for a read tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry all parameter meaning and largely does: start/end are explained with accepted formats (beats or "bar.beat.sixteenth"), and limit is described behaviorally. The 'tracks limits the tracks' clause is thin — it doesn't clarify whether entries are indices or names — so it isn't fully compensating.

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 and resource ('The arrangement timeline') and enumerates what it returns (tracks, clips with fields, locators, loop region, song length). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_song_overview or get_clip without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: start/end keep only clips overlapping the range, tracks limits the tracks, and a worked example (start="9.1.1", end="17.1.1"). It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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