get_arrangement_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Read' and lists returned fields. However, it omits potential behavioral details such as zero-based indexing, handling of invalid track indices, ordering of clips, or units for position/length. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: one functional sentence plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what data will be returned (name, position, length, MIDI/audio, muted) and the required argument. It lacks minor details (units, indexing base) but is reasonably complete for typical use cases given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It includes 'track_index: The index of the track', but this only repeats the parameter name and adds no new insight (e.g., zero-based vs one-based, how to obtain the index). It adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, which already shows the type and requirement.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('clips on a track's Arrangement timeline'), and lists the exact data fields returned (name, position, length, MIDI/audio, muted). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual clips or session clips, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to retrieve clip metadata from a track's arrangement timeline. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for reading notes use get_arrangement_clip_notes, for session clips use other tools). However, given the focused phrasing, 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.