get_arrangement_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, the description does not clarify the exact format of the returned data (e.g., units of length, whether loop start/end are returned, or if loop is a boolean). Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be expected.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the length and loop settings of the arrangement.' Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, but it lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not specify the structure or units of the returned length and loop settings, which an AI agent would need to interpret the result correctly. A more complete description would mention that the length is in beats or bars, and that loop settings include enabled/start/end/length properties.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 identifies the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'arrangement' along with the precise information returned ('length and loop settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_arrangement_loop (which writes loop settings) and get_arrangement_clips (which returns clips, not length/loop).

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 tool's intended use is implied by its name and description: an agent would use this when it needs the arrangement's length or loop settings. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Some context is implied but not clearly stated.

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