get_automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: values are returned in display units (dB, Hz, pan), the sample points span the clip loop, and it works for both Session and arrangement envelopes.

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?

Three compact sentences plus a concrete example, front-loaded with the primary behavior and with the display-unit and scope details appended. Every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and while the description sketches the returned content (parameter list, breakpoints, samples), the shape of the return and the roles of several inputs remain thin for a 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains `parameter` well (listing vs breakpoints) and references `samples`, and the example demonstrates track-as-string and slot usage. But `device` and `arrangement_clip` are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving known gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the parameters a clip automates, and with `parameter` also its breakpoints and samples. It clearly marks this as a read/inspection tool and covers both Session clips and arrangement-clip envelopes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from write_automation/clear_automation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the two modes it describes (omit `parameter` to list parameters, supply it to get breakpoints/samples), and the example shows them. However, it never names alternative siblings or states when NOT to use this tool versus get_clip or write_automation, leaving routing to inference.

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