get_available_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get available input routing options,' which implies a read operation but does not state that it has no side effects, what the return value looks like, whether the track must exist, or how invalid indexes are handled. Missing essential behavioral details.

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 very short and free of fluff, making it easy to scan. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but does not add unnecessary verbosity. It is concise, though the structure could be improved by removing the redundant parameter 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 read tool, the description is still incomplete. It does not describe the format of the return value (e.g., list of string names, objects), whether it returns all available options or only some, or how errors are communicated. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing about critical details.

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 parameter description 'The index of the track' adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies an integer named 'track_index'. However, it does not explain whether the index is zero-based or one-based, how it maps to a track, or any constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.

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's action: 'Get available input routing options for a track.' It specifies the resource (input routing options) and the scope (a track), which conveys the core purpose. The name also aligns with sibling tools like 'get_available_outputs' and 'get_track_input_routing', though the description does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns options for routing input, nor does it contrast with related tools like 'set_track_input_routing' or 'get_track_input_routing'. The context is minimal and relies entirely on the tool name.

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