get_master_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns information about the master track, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose details about the return format, potential errors, or any side effects. The mention of 'volume, pan, and devices' adds some scope but not deep behavioral transparency.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. It identifies the target (master track) and key data points (volume, pan, devices). However, it could be slightly clearer about whether 'devices' refers to device names, parameters, or the chain, but this is a minor gap.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain parameters because none exist.

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 purpose: 'Get information about the master track including volume, pan, and devices.' It uses a specific verb + resource and enumerates the fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_return_track_info which target other track types.

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 implies usage for retrieving master track settings but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives context (master track info) but no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it falls under 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.

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