ableton_capabilities

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the payload contains (edit operations, argument names, hard limits), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about size or how limits are expressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the three things returned, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does so by naming the three categories of content returned. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it doesn't describe the shape of the response (e.g., whether limits are per-operation or global).

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists edit operations, argument names, and hard limits, which clearly identifies it as a schema/discovery tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like ableton_parameters or ableton_inspect_set, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is 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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'capabilities' – an agent can guess it should call this before attempting edits to learn the valid operations and limits, but the description never says when to use it or what to use instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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