get_song_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context: the exact return surface, the fact that times are returned as beats plus 'bar.beat.sixteenth', and how detail=True expands the payload. It does not mention auth, caching, or cost, but the annotation bar is low here.

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 one-line purpose ('One-call map of the project') followed by dense but factual enumerations. The long parentheticals are information-rich rather than padding, though the sheer volume of listed fields is on the verbose side. No sentence is wasted.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing return contents, so an agent knows what it will receive. Annotations cover safety and the alternates are named. Only the absence of any note on payload size/cost for detail=True keeps it from being fully complete.

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% for the single 'detail' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does: detail=True explicitly enables every set_song setting, mixer levels (dB), pan/sends, device classes and on/off, clip colours, and arrangement clip lists, versus the lean default. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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+resource (a one-call overview/map of the project) and enumerates exactly what it covers: tempo, meter, key/scale, tracks, returns/master, scenes, locators, selection. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_track and get_notes as the deeper alternatives. An agent can place it precisely without opening any schema.

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?

The closing 'Use get_track or get_notes for more' explicitly routes the agent to alternatives when per-track or note-level detail is needed. There is no explicit when-not statement or prerequisite, but the intended usage (broad snapshot first, drill down later) is clear.

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