get_track_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses one behavioral nuance (track_index is ignored for master), but it omits what 'detailed information' actually includes, how errors are handled, or whether the tool has side effects. For a read tool without annotations or output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is scannable and efficient.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format or content ('detailed information' is vague), nor does it address how this tool relates to get_master_track_info. This leaves the agent without critical execution context.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining the track_kind options ('regular', 'return', 'master') and the special behavior of track_index for master. However, it does not specify whether indices are 0-based or 1-based, leaving some semantic ambiguity.

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 the tool 'gets detailed information about a track', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from session/master tools by explaining track_kind options, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_master_track_info, leaving potential ambiguity about which tool to use for master tracks.

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 context for when to use different parameters (e.g., 'for master, use track_kind='master'') but doesn't present alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like get_master_track_info. Usage is implied through parameter explanations rather than explicit guidance on choosing this tool over others.

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