get_arrangement_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It implies a read-only listing operation and mentions the returned fields (positions, lengths, names). However, it does not explain error behavior, track indexing, or how missing tracks are handled, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second gives use cases, and the third lists the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, use cases, and parameter meaning. It lacks a detailed return structure, but the mention of 'positions, lengths, and names' provides enough context for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 compensate for the parameter. The 'Parameters' section says 'track_index: Track to inspect', which essentially restates the schema property 'Track Index' and adds little meaning. It does not clarify zero-based indexing or how to resolve a track index.

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 a specific action: 'List all clips currently on a track's Arrangement timeline, with positions, lengths, and names.' It names the resource (arrangement clips) and the output data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_info or get_track_info.

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 description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to verify arrangement work, find gaps, or confirm placements.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the intended scenarios are well-defined.

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