get_routing_options

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: state-dependent output where the channel list reflects the currently selected type, a required re-read after set_track, and a scope limit for return/group/master tracks.

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-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by two short supporting sentences. No filler, though the awkward line breaks add no value.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews what is returned (types and channels) and flags the scope exception for return/group/master tracks. The remaining gap is the undocumented track parameter format.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'track' parameter accepts either an integer or string, yet the description never clarifies whether it is an index, name, or path. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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: reading the current input/output routing of a track along with the available types and channels. This is clearly distinct from the broader get_track resource, though no sibling is named to reinforce the differentiation.

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?

Provides a concrete workflow rule: the channels belong to the current type, and after switching type with set_track the agent must re-invoke this tool. It also gives a caveat that return, group and master tracks expose output routing only. No explicit when-not or alternative-search guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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