ableton-mcp

by jpoindexter

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are clear overlaps: load_instrument_or_effect and load_item_to_track both load instruments/effects onto a track via URI, and browse_path and get_browser_items_at_path both navigate the browser by path. These duplicates create ambiguity for agents.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, set_*, create_*, delete_*, etc.) in snake_case. Minor outliers like 'undo', 'redo', and 'health_check' deviate slightly but don't break the overall pattern.
Tool Count1/5
128 tools is far beyond even the 50+ extreme threshold. While Ableton has a rich feature set, this granularity (e.g., separate humanize_timing and humanize_velocity, separate get_clip_gain and set_clip_gain) makes the server unwieldy and difficult for agents to navigate effectively.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering track, clip, scene, device, routing, browser, transport, automation, warp, and groove functionality. Minor gaps like session save/export or locator movement exist, but they are not critical to core workflows.
Average 3.4/5 across 128 of 128 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Duplicate a scene' without disclosing behavior such as side effects, return value, or how the duplicate is inserted. This fails to inform the agent about mutation semantics or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. It includes a parameter list that repeats the schema, but the formatting is clean and not excessively verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only minimal parameter info, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what happens after duplication, whether the duplicate is returned, or how the scene index is validated, leaving important context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines scene_index as an integer with no description. The description adds 'The index of the scene to duplicate', which clarifies its purpose but provides no additional constraints, format, or range information, so it only marginally compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Duplicate a scene' with a clear verb+resource pair. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like duplicate_clip or duplicate_track, but the resource 'scene' is specific enough for basic identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about the resulting scene placement, whether contents are copied, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it simply restates the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'automation data' means, the return format, potential errors, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a parameter list, with no redundant text. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the brevity sacrifices substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what data is returned for automation data, but it doesn't. The tool is simple, yet the lack of return format or behavioral context leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists parameters with names and types. The description adds terse one-line explanations ('The index of the track') that barely go beyond the parameter names. No additional details on value ranges or expected formats are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get automation data') and the resource ('a clip parameter'). It distinguishes from mutation siblings like set_clip_automation by implying a read-only fetch, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description merely states what it does without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only restates the tool's name ('Select a scene') without disclosing effects, side effects, or prerequisites. There is no mention of what selecting means functionally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and front-loaded with the purpose, listing the parameter without unnecessary text. It is concise, though arguably too sparse, but no words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully explain the impact of selecting a scene. It leaves the agent uncertain about the result, side effects, or distinction from scene playback operations, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only a minimal explanation of scene_index as 'the index of the scene to select.' This barely goes beyond the parameter name and type, omitting details like zero-based indexing, bounds, or error behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool selects a scene, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from selecting tracks or clips, though it doesn't elaborate on what selection entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fire_scene, stop_scene, or select_clip. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a two-word description ('Start recording'), the tool's behavior is entirely undisclosed. It does not mention transport state changes, whether recording is non-destructive, what happens to existing clips, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that fails to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. For a zero-parameter action, this is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete in context. It fails to disambiguate from sibling recording controls, explain what 'recording' means here, or describe expected behavior. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description carries full responsibility, which it does not fulfill.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the schema declares an empty properties object. The input schema fully covers parameter expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Start recording') and resource ('Ableton'), but it does not specify whether this starts session recording, arrangement recording, or a general transport record. Sibling tools like toggle_session_record, toggle_arrangement_record, and stop_recording highlight this ambiguity, making the tool's exact purpose unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toggle_session_record, toggle_arrangement_record, or capture_midi. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., armed track) or situations where this tool is the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the action makes quantization permanent, which implies a mutating operation, but it does not explain what exactly changes (e.g., note timing/velocity), whether it overwrites existing quantization, if it is reversible via `undo`, or any failure conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter lines are somewhat redundant with the schema titles, but they do not bloat the description; it remains appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation-like tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only terse parameter listings, the description lacks essential context: relationship to `apply_groove`, what 'permanent' means for the clip data, and whether any undo mechanism is implied. The two simple parameters limit complexity, but the missing workflow and side-effect context make this incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for missing parameter documentation. However, it only restates 'track_index' and 'clip_index' as 'The index of the track' and 'The index of the clip slot', adding no non-obvious semantics like zero-based indexing, valid ranges, or how the track/clip is selected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Commit groove quantization to clip notes' and adds '(make it permanent)' which distinguishes it from the sibling `apply_groove` by implying a permanent vs. temporary effect. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like `apply_groove` or `get_groove_pool`. The phrase 'make it permanent' implies a workflow context (applying a groove first, then committing), but this is not explicit, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the purpose and parameter, with no information about side effects, return format, error handling, or whether it is a safe read operation. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description provides no explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter list is redundant with the schema, adding no value. Still, it is efficiently sized and not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable for a simple one-parameter getter tool. It tells the user what the tool does, but lacks context on return value structure, when to use it, and potential errors. Given no output schema, the description should provide more detail on what 'available output routing options' means.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's parameter section simply repeats the schema: 'track_index: The index of the track' adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name and type. It lacks details like 0-based indexing, valid range, or relationship to other parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get available output routing options for a track.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available output routing options'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_available_inputs and get_track_output_routing by specifying it returns the available options, not the current routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of when to prefer it over get_available_inputs or get_track_output_routing, or any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not state that this is a non-destructive read operation, nor does it describe return values, units, or error behavior. For a getter, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter, the description omits key contextual information such as the return value's format (e.g., gain in dB), whether the operation can fail, and any dependencies. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 lists parameters with minimal explanations ('The index of the track', 'The index of the clip slot') that add little beyond the property names. No constraints or additional context are given, failing to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Get the gain of an audio clip.' This is specific and distinguishes it from related getters like get_clip_pitch or get_clip_color. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it lacks a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'get', but it does not disclose what data is returned, potential errors (e.g., invalid index), or any side effects. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and does not set expectations for the response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter listing. There is no redundant filler. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness despite the clean structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes, how indexing works, or what errors might occur. This lack of detail makes it hard for an agent to know what to expect from the tool, especially without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a minimal parameter explanation: 'return_index: The index of the return track.' This adds a little beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type, but it does not specify indexing conventions (0-based vs 1-based), valid ranges, or how to obtain the index. Given zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a return track.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('return track'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_return_tracks (which lists tracks) and get_track_info (which targets regular tracks). However, it does not elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single return track by index, nor does it contrast with get_return_tracks or get_track_info. A user would need to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and parameter, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose what data is returned, whether the index is zero-based, error behavior for invalid indices, or any side effects. The phrase 'Get detailed information' gives no concrete behavioral context beyond the operation itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but not verbose. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices valuable clarifying details that would not significantly increase length. Overall, it is concise but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes, but it does not. It also lacks guidance about the context of use (e.g., when to choose this over get_track_color). The tool is simple, but for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, more context about return contents and intended use is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter list with 'track_index: The index of the track to get information about', which minimally restates the parameter name. It does not clarify indexing convention (zero-based vs. one-based), valid ranges, or how to target specific track types. Schema coverage is 0% in the schema itself, so the description was expected to compensate more fully but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific track'), which makes the primary purpose understandable. However, 'detailed information' is vague and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_track_color or get_send_level, though the general nature is implied by the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is the general-purpose track info getter or that more specific tools exist for individual properties. It also does not specify prerequisites (e.g., session open) or exclude cases (e.g., return tracks not covered).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation itself and does not mention read-only nature, return format, potential errors, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary sentence. However, the parameter list is redundant with the input schema and adds no value. While there is no fluff, the structure wastes a line on unnecessary repetition rather than using it to convey useful details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned 'input routing' value looks like or how to interpret it. It also lacks context about related tools (e.g., get_available_inputs) and how the routing information fits into broader workflows. The description is minimal but incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's parameter section ('track_index: The index of the track') merely repeats the schema's title without adding meaningful semantics. It does not explain the indexing convention (e.g., zero-based vs one-based), how to determine the index, or any constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('input routing of a track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_track_output_routing by explicitly stating 'input routing'. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_track_info or get_available_inputs. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses only the core action 'Select a track' but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it changes the current track focus, highlight in UI, or interacts with other tools). No error handling or reversibility is mentioned, leaving significant behavioral unknown.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and contains no fluff; it provides the essential action and parameter list in two lines. However, it is under-specified, which means it is concise but at the expense of necessary information, so it does not fully earn its place for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about how track_index is used (zero-based vs one-based), what selection means for subsequent operations, and whether it affects the Live set's current track state. This could lead an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists 'track_index: The index of the track to select' but this adds minimal detail beyond the schema's property name and type. It doesn't clarify zero-based indexing, valid ranges, or what happens if the index is out of bounds, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description was the only opportunity to explain the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Select a track' clearly states the action (select) and the resource (track), making it a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like select_rack_chain or select_clip by explicitly targeting tracks, though it doesn't elaborate on the selection context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or effects. The description merely states the action without explaining for what scenarios it is appropriate, such as before modifying a track or in session vs arrangement view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Delete a locator' without mentioning that deletion is destructive, irreversible, or has side effects. No information about error handling or confirmation is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and to the point, but it includes a parameter listing that largely repeats the input schema. The single sentence 'Delete a locator' is useful, while the parameter line adds little value, making it slightly less concise in information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a locator is, what happens after deletion, or whether the operation can be undone (especially given the presence of an 'undo' sibling). The absence of annotations and output schema makes this description inadequate for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a basic explanation for the only parameter ('Index of the locator to delete'), which clarifies the schema's minimal 'Locator Index' label. However, this is only a slight improvement and lacks detail about valid ranges, required format, or behavior if invalid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Delete a locator') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_locator or get_locators, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the obvious deletion action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., undo, create_locator, get_locators). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 repeats the getter nature ('Get...') without disclosing whether it is read-only, potential side effects, error conditions, or return format. The phrase 'available input routing options' implies a list but does not specify behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter section largely duplicates the schema information, creating minor redundancy, so it does not earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it omits what the returned options look like, how they relate to set_track_input_routing, and any usage context, making it marginally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already defines track_index as an integer with title 'Track Index'; the description adds 'The index of the track', which is minimally more informative. It lacks details like zero-based indexing or valid range, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get available input routing options for a track' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_available_outputs or get_track_input_routing, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_available_outputs or get_track_input_routing. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return format, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It is a bare minimal statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear 'Parameters' section. It contains no fluff, but it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no output schema, the description should at least describe the return value (e.g., color format) or error behavior. It only states the action and parameter, leaving the response completely unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates the parameter as 'The index of the track', which adds no deeper meaning beyond the schema's parameter name. It does not explain indexing style (0-based vs 1-based), valid ranges, or how the index relates to tracks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Get the color of a track.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_track_color and get_clip_color by focusing on 'track' and 'color'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_clip_color or set_track_color. It only states the function without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a track' implies destructiveness, but it does not mention irreversibility, side effects on contained clips/devices, or any safety-related details. This is minimal and adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. The parameter explanation is minimal but not wasteful. It earns its place by providing basic context, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks important contextual details such as what happens to the track's contents, whether the action is reversible, and how to determine the track index. Given the simplicity, this is minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains that track_index is 'the index of the track to delete', which gives the parameter clear semantic meaning. However, it omits details like zero-based indexing, bounds, or how to obtain the index, leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a track' with a verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. It differentiates from sibling delete tools by specifying 'track', but does not explicitly distinguish from related operations like delete_clip or delete_scene beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or consequences. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over similar delete operations or track-management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and included items. It does not disclose side effects like insertion position, track naming, undoability, or whether routing and automation are copied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, direct, and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could include more behavioral context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description captures the basic operation but omits expected results (e.g., where the new track appears, return values) and side effects. It feels barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter description 'The index of the track to duplicate' adds little beyond the schema's property title 'Track Index'. It does not clarify zero-based indexing, bounds, or existence requirements, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Duplicate', the specific resource 'track', and the scope 'with all its clips and devices'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_clip and duplicate_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_clip or duplicate_scene. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual indications; the usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Start playing a clip' without explaining side effects such as whether it starts transport, requires the track to exist, or changes clip launch state. This is a significant gap for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It's well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimal. It lacks crucial context like indexing conventions, relationship to transport state, and error behavior. Since there are no annotations or output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke it reliably in varied situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles and types (0% description coverage), so the parameter explanations in the description add value by clarifying what track_index and clip_index refer to. However, it omits indexing conventions (e.g., zero-based vs. one-based) and behavior on invalid indices, so it's partially helpful but not fully compensatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Start playing a clip' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from global transport controls like start_playback and scene launchers like fire_scene. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings or clarify session-specific behavior, so it's mostly clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_clip, fire_scene, or start_playback. It doesn't mention any preconditions or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without mentioning return format, side effects, error behavior, or whether the clip must exist. This is minimal and does not add transparency beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter list could be more compactly integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks an explanation of what the loop settings actually include or what the return value looks like. Since there is no output schema, this missing information is a gap for an agent that needs to consume the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter descriptions do add meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining that track_index refers to the track containing the clip and clip_index to the clip slot. However, they do not specify whether indices are zero-based, what valid ranges are, or any constraints, so the explanation is basic but not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('loop settings of a clip'), which distinguishes it from write tools like set_clip_loop. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getters like get_clip_warp_info or get_clip_gain, but the resource name is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_loop or the other get_clip_* tools. The description simply restates the function and parameters without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get warp information' without specifying what information is returned, the format of the output, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, and no error or edge-case behavior is mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a simple parameter list. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'warp information' includes and how the result is returned. It does neither, leaving significant ambiguity. The tool appears simple, but the lack of behavioral and output details makes it incomplete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic meaning to both parameters by explaining they refer to the track index and clip slot index. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of semantics. It lacks important details such as whether indices are zero-based or one-based, or how to obtain valid indices, so it only minimally compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Get warp information for an audio clip.' This is a specific verb plus resource, making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_warp_markers, which also retrieves warp-related data, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_warp_markers or set_clip_warp_mode. There is no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic read operation. It does not explain what happens if the device is not found, whether the track index is required for disambiguation, or the exact structure of the returned 'parameters.' This leaves the agent guessing about error handling and edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No unnecessary fluff. It earns a high score for brevity, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit field definitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description offers minimal context. It tells the agent the basic operation and parameters, but lacks important details about return format, error conditions, and the relationship between track_index and device_name. The agent might not be able to fully interpret the result without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. However, the parameter descriptions are nearly identical to their names: 'The index of the track' and 'The name of the device to find' add little beyond the schema's primitive types. No details about indexing (zero-based), exact matching, or case sensitivity are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find a device by name and get its parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('device by name') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_device_parameters by indicating that it locates a device by name rather than by other means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback options, or conditions under which another tool might be more appropriate. The description merely states the purpose without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says 'Get all parameters.' It does not mention return format, read-only nature (though implied by 'get'), error conditions, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that returns potentially complex data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the 'Parameters:' section duplicates information already available in the input schema and does not earn its place. The explanation adds no novel content, making the description less efficient than it appears.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description still lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'parameters' means structurally (e.g., names, values, automation states), how the return is formatted, or any prerequisites. Given no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete for real-world use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. However, the parameter descriptions just restate the schema titles ('track_index: The index of the track containing the device') without adding meaning like zero-based indexing, valid ranges, or context. This adds minimal value over the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all parameters from a device on a track.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_device_by_name' (which returns device info) and 'set_device_parameter' (which modifies a parameter). The phrase 'all parameters' signals a comprehensive retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over 'get_device_by_name' or how it differs from parameter-specific getters. The description simply states functionality without usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets chains but does not describe the return format, potential errors, whether it modifies state, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the primary action. The parameter list is concise. It loses a point because the parameter details are redundant with the schema and could be trimmed without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value looks like (e.g., chain names, indices, or objects). It does not. Additionally, no context is given about the relationship of chains to rack devices, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. However, the parameter explanations ('The index of the track', 'The index of the rack device') merely restate the schema field titles. They do not clarify indexing conventions (e.g., zero-based vs one-based), which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get chains') and a specific resource ('instrument or effect rack'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like select_rack_chain. It is concise and unambiguous about the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites (e.g., valid track/device indices) exist, or any exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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' without disclosing the return format, potential error cases, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences with no fluff, and the parameter is mentioned up front. It is efficient, though under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no output schema, the description should at least mention the format of the returned color or any relevant limitations. It only states the action, leaving the agent to guess what the response will look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description's parameter explanation ('The index of the scene') provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema's type declaration. It does not explain what a scene index represents or how to find it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the color of a scene' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_track_color and get_clip_color by clearly targeting scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states the basic function without any context on how it fits into the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states 'load' without mentioning whether the operation replaces existing devices, what happens on invalid track indices, or whether it is destructive. This is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, with the main action stated first and a clear parameter list. It contains no redundant content and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a write operation with no annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain the operation's effects, prerequisites, or relationship to similar load tools. The URI example provides some context but is insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides brief parameter explanations that the schema lacks, including a concrete URI example. However, it does not specify constraints, validation rules, or the full URI format beyond the example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads an instrument or effect onto a track using its URI. It names a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like load_item_to_track or load_drum_kit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_item_to_track or load_drum_kit. The description only states the basic operation without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Unfold (expand) a group track', which conveys the fundamental effect but no additional behavioral traits. There is no mention of whether this is a view-only operation, whether it modifies the track, what happens if the track is not a group track, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one action sentence followed by a single parameter description. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does not explain the broader context, such as being the inverse of 'fold_track', or provide any details about return values or error handling. For a simple tool this might be minimally acceptable, but the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the operation's behavior and constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanation 'track_index: The index of the group track' does add some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks details such as zero-based vs one-based indexing, range constraints, or behavior for invalid indexes. It partially compensates but is not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Unfold (expand) a group track.' This is a specific verb and resource combination. While it does not explicitly mention sibling 'fold_track', the term 'unfold' is self-explanatory and distinguishes the tool's purpose sufficiently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'fold_track' or 'create_group_track'. It lacks context about prerequisites, like ensuring the track is a group track, or when unfolding is appropriate. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only provides a generic search description and parameter list, without mentioning what is returned, matching behavior, or any side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic search action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a parameter list, with no unnecessary words. The parameter explanations are useful and directly support the schema, keeping the description focused and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value and how results are presented. It does not, and it also fails to relate this tool to sibling browser functions, leaving a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides names, types, and a default, so the description adds valuable meaning. It clarifies that query searches item names and enumerates all valid category values, which the schema does not include.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search the browser') and target ('items matching a query'), which distinguishes it from navigation tools like browse_path or get_browser_items_at_path. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other browser-related tools. The description only states the operation without any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Apply a groove to a clip.' It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, whether it is undoable, how it interacts with the clip's existing timing, or what the response indicates. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, using a single sentence plus a clean parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema (titles match), but the added descriptions justify the format. It is easy to scan and front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings, but it lacks crucial context for correct invocation: no mention of return value, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that modifies a clip, the agent is left without information on how to interpret success/failure or whether the groove application replaces existing groove data. Given there is no output schema, the description should have explained these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description supplements the schema by explaining each parameter: track_index, clip_index, and groove_index. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this text is essential and adds meaning beyond the type and title fields. The explanations are accurate and sufficient for an agent to map values to the correct indices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Apply a groove to a clip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parameter list reinforces the target object. This distinguishes apply_groove from sibling tools like get_groove_pool (retrieves grooves) and commit_groove (commits a groove).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a groove existing in the pool), conditions under which it should be used, or when to prefer commit_groove or get_groove_pool. The description is entirely silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that navigation returns items but does not clarify side effects, error behavior, read-only status, or return format. The examples give some context but are insufficient for a complete understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus examples. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value. This is a model of efficient communication for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should clarify what items are returned. It states 'get items at that location' but does not describe the structure or type of items. Given the low complexity, this is a minimal but not fully complete description; a slightly clearer return contract would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter, and the description compensates with clear examples (e.g., ["Audio Effects", "EQ Eight"]). This gives useful context but does not fully specify all aspects (e.g., case sensitivity, handling of invalid paths). Since there is only one simple parameter with example-based semantics, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Navigate browser by path list') and the resource ('browser'), indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like search_browser and get_browser_tree by emphasizing path-based navigation, but does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related get_browser_items_at_path, so it loses one point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_browser_items_at_path or get_browser_tree. The description gives examples but does not state the preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This makes it unclear for an agent to choose between sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Clear automation') but does not explain whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to the current parameter value, whether it affects the clip slot only, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a straightforward parameter list. It contains no fluff, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not describe the return behavior (if any), error conditions, or the exact effect on the track/clip. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in the agent's ability to predict outcomes and handle failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists each parameter with a one-line explanation, but these are largely restatements of the property names ('The index of the track' for track_index). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate with meaningful detail, but it omits critical conventions like zero-based indexing, how parameter_name should be formatted, or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('automation for a clip parameter'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_clip_automation and set_clip_automation. Despite its brevity, the action and target are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_automation or get_clip_automation. It does not state typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a scene' without mentioning that deletion is destructive, whether it can be undone (despite the undo sibling tool), or what happens to clips or other elements in the scene. This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is clearly structured. No unnecessary words are used. However, the brevity contributes to missing behavioral context, but for conciseness alone it earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description provides only the operation and parameter, but omits essential context such as side effects (e.g., deleting associated clips), reversibility (undo), or any constraints. For a delete tool, this incompleteness can lead an agent to misuse it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one integer parameter 'scene_index' with only a title, and the description adds 'The index of the scene to delete', which is nearly redundant with the title. It does provide a slight clarification that it is the target scene, but it does not add constraints like valid ranges or default values. Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a scene' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scene, fire_scene, and duplicate_scene by the action 'delete'. The parameter 'scene_index' further clarifies which scene is affected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the scene needing to exist, nor does it offer alternatives like undo or other scene manipulation tools. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether it changes UI state persistently. The meaning of 'focus' is left implicit, and no information about invalid view names is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. Every word is functional, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given its simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but has gaps. The list of valid view names is incomplete ('etc.'), and no behavioral details are provided, but the tool is straightforward enough that this may suffice in many contexts. Still, it could be more precise.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It provides the parameter name and examples of valid values ('Session, Arranger, Detail, etc.'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify exact allowed strings, case sensitivity, or a definitive list, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Focus a specific view in Ableton') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tool 'get_current_view' by being the write counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the complementary operation to get_current_view, nor any prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'get' implying a read-only operation but does not disclose what data is returned, whether it is expensive, or any side effects. The term 'detailed information' is vague and gives the agent no concrete expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose (get) and resource (session info).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no explanation of what 'detailed information' includes, an agent cannot predict what the tool returns or how to interpret it. The description is too sparse for a tool that is meant to provide a broad overview of the session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information needed. The description correctly stays silent on parameters, and per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about the current Ableton session' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (current Ableton session). However, 'session' is broad and does not distinguish this tool from many specific sibling getters like get_track_info, get_cpu_load, or get_playback_position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling getters covering specific aspects of a session, an agent cannot determine whether to call get_session_info or a more targeted tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove all notes from a clip' but does not disclose that this is a destructive, irreversible action, whether it can be undone, or what happens to the clip's state. No side effects or safety implications are mentioned, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is unambiguous and directly relevant. However, it could arguably omit the explicit 'Parameters:' section since the schema already presents them, but the added clarity for index meanings justifies its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two integer params, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the difference from similar tools (e.g., remove_notes), does not mention whether the operation is reversible, and provides no context about expected behavior or carveats. The agent would have to infer these details from elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that track_index is 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index is 'the index of the clip slot containing the clip'. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names and types in the schema, though it is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: removing all notes from a clip. It includes the specific resource (clip) and the scope (all notes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_notes (which may remove specific notes) and quantize_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), no exclusion criteria, and no reference to sibling tools like remove_notes or clear_clip_automation. The description simply states the action without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not explain what happens to existing loop points, whether loop_start/loop_end are ignored when looping is false, how invalid track/clip indices are handled, or any side effects. It implies mutation via 'set' but adds no further detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single opening line followed by a bulleted parameter list. No unnecessary words are present, and the structure is easy to scan. The parameter list is justified because the schema lacks descriptions, so it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic 'what' and parameter meanings, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, important contextual gaps remain: how loop_start/end relate to looping enablement, clip length constraints, error behavior, and success signals. It is minimally viable but not complete enough for robust tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description's parameter list provides meaningful explanations for all five parameters, including the unit ('in beats') for loop_start/loop_end and the boolean nature of looping. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it stops short of explaining parameter interdependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('the loop settings of a clip'), and the parameter list further specifies loop start, end, and looping toggle. It is not a full tautology like 'Process' – it expands the tool name into a readable sentence, though it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_clip_loop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisite conditions (e.g., the clip must exist) or when to prefer get_clip_loop for reading. It simply describes what it does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Stop recording' without revealing whether it affects session or arrangement recording, whether it is safe to call when not recording, or what side effects occur (e.g., saving, discarding).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, brief sentence that conveys the core action with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even for a zero-parameter tool, the description is too thin. It fails to provide essential context about recording scope (session vs arrangement), behavior when no recording is active, and relationship to sibling recording controls. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such explanatory detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and the description need not add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop recording in Ableton.' clearly uses the verb 'stop' with the resource 'recording', making the primary action unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish among recording types (session vs arrangement) or compare to sibling tools like toggle_session_record, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_playback, toggle_session_record, or toggle_arrangement_record, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does disclose that sample_time is optional and calculated automatically if omitted, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether existing markers are affected), requirements like warp mode, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutating nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters but omits key context such as whether the clip must be an audio clip (already implied), what happens to existing warp markers, and any error conditions. An agent would lack the information to safely invoke this tool in real scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter, with the most useful being sample_time ('calculated automatically if not provided'). However, track_index and clip_index are defined tautologically ('The index of the track/clip slot'), adding minimal value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Add a warp marker') and a clear resource ('an audio clip'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_warp_markers and delete_warp_marker, which perform different operations on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must be warped), or alternatives. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not reveal potential error conditions (e.g., invalid track/clip index), return format, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a minimal parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter tool, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'parameters,' but lacks context on return values, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves notable gaps but remains adequate for a basic read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: track_index as 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index as 'the index of the clip slot.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare integer type, though it remains terse and does not specify indexing conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's function clearly: 'Get the color of a clip.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from set_clip_color. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other get_clip_* tools (e.g., get_clip_gain) beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not say that this is the read-only counterpart to set_clip_color.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get the pitch shift' without describing the return value (e.g., units), error handling, or side effects. While 'get' implies read-only, the description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name and action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameters listed clearly. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks usage guidance, return format, and error behavior, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly. The omission is not fatal but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the parameter descriptions ('The index of the track', 'The index of the clip slot') mostly restate the parameter names. The only minor addition is 'clip slot', which clarifies the clip_index refers to a slot, but overall the semantic value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'get' and a specific resource 'audio clip' with the attribute 'pitch shift', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_clip_gain and get_clip_warp_info. The purpose is immediately apparent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states the action and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the operation is a getter (safe), but it does not describe the return format, possible monitoring mode values (e.g., In/Auto/Off), or handling of invalid track indexes. This lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded. It states the core purpose in one sentence and lists the parameter with a brief explanation. Every element earns its place with no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the monitoring mode values are or what the tool returns. It simply says 'Get the monitoring mode' but does not provide enough context for an agent to interpret results. The tool is simple, but the missing return information makes the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter meaning. It does add 'the index of the track' for track_index, which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it does not specify indexing conventions (zero-based vs one-based) or whether the track_index refers to audio, MIDI, return, or master tracks. This is minimal compensation for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the monitoring mode of a track.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies a distinct resource ('track monitoring mode'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_monitoring. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that set_track_monitoring is for changing the mode, nor does it explain scenarios (e.g., checking current monitoring state before modification). The description offers no contextual pointers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of selecting without mentioning side effects, such as changing the current selection state, whether the change persists, or what happens with invalid indices. No context about reversibility or impact on playback is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and every line provides necessary meaning without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain key domain concepts like what constitutes a rack device or a chain, nor how to obtain valid index values. It lacks information about error handling, return behavior, or how this selection integrates with other operations, making it insufficient for a novice agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a short explanation for each parameter beyond the schema, which has no descriptions. For example, it states track_index is 'the index of the track' and chain_index is 'the index of the chain to select'. However, these explanations are largely tautological and do not clarify constraints, zero-based indexing, or relationships between indices, leaving significant gaps given the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Select a chain in a rack device' which clearly specifies the action (select), the resource (chain), and the context (rack device). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_track, select_scene, or select_clip, as it specifically targets chains within rack devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For instance, it does not mention that the user might need to call get_rack_chains to discover valid chain indices, nor when selection is appropriate in a workflow. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Set automation') without explaining whether existing automation is replaced, how envelope data is interpreted, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one introductory sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or vague content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, and four required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as whether automation replaces or appends, prerequisites for the clip/parameter, and expected behavior on failure. The parameter list covers basics but not practical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides per-parameter explanations, including an example for 'envelope_data'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but explanations are minimal (e.g., no mention of indexing being zero-based or time units). Partial compensation for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set automation for a clip parameter' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_clip_automation' and 'clear_clip_automation'. It unambiguously states the primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or relationships to related automation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the value 'will be clamped to valid range', which is useful, but omits other important traits like error handling for invalid indices, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on playback or device state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-line purpose and followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with four parameters, the description covers the basics, but it lacks some contextual details such as how parameter indices are obtained, what valid value ranges are, and behavior on failure. No output schema exists, so the description should provide a bit more context, but it is minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role: track containing the device, device on the track, parameter to set, and new value with clamping. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a device parameter value' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_device_parameters (read) and toggle_device (toggle), though it doesn't explicitly call out these differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites, such as needing to first query device/parameter indices via get_device_parameters. The description simply states what it does without explaining context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Set overdub mode' without disclosing side effects, scope, reversibility, or any impact on other settings, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no fluff. The purpose is stated first, followed by a clear parameter explanation, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks context about what overdub mode means in the DAW environment or when it should be used. The missing usage and behavioral information leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the boolean parameter: 'True to enable overdub, False to disable'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides the type and title, and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets overdub mode, which is specific and distinct from siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other set_* tools beyond the unique resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when overdub mode should be enabled/disabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('Set the name') without addressing side effects, error behavior, reversibility, or whether the scene must already exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with a single lead sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every line adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks any mention of error handling, valid ranges, or relationship to undo. Given the absence of annotations, this leaves some gaps about the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage) by providing per-parameter explanations: scene_index is 'the index of the scene to rename' and name is 'the new name for the scene.' While no constraints or examples are given, the explanations successfully disambiguate the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the name') and resource ('a scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_name and set_clip_name. However, it does not add any distinguishing nuance or scope beyond the basic verb+resource pair.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information about when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not reference sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions under which this should be used instead of another naming tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing state changes. It simply says 'Stop playing a clip' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the clip position resets, if other clips continue playing, or if it's idempotent). As a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a clear parameter list. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action tool, the description provides the essential information but lacks behavioral context. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after stopping (e.g., success/failure indicators, effect on clip state). It's adequate minimal coverage but leaves noteworthy gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: 'The index of the track containing the clip' and 'The index of the clip slot containing the clip.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type, and since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well. However, it omits details like zero-based indexing or range constraints, so it doesn't earn a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop playing a clip' uses a specific verb and resource, making the basic purpose clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like fire_clip by the action, but doesn't explicitly note distinctions from stop_playback (global stop) or delete_clip, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like stop_playback (which stops all playback) or fire_clip (which starts a clip). The user must infer usage solely from the name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conceptual behavior (rendering devices to audio) but omits key traits such as reversibility, impact on device editing, or side effects. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, defining the action in a single parenthetical clause and providing a simple parameter list. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but fails to provide essential context for a mutating operation. It does not specify whether freezing is destructive, whether it can be undone via the sibling 'undo' tool, or how it differs from 'flatten_track.' This leaves an AI agent without critical operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates the parameter 'track_index' with 'The index of the track to freeze,' but the input schema already labels it as 'Track Index' with type integer. No additional semantics like indexing convention, error behavior, or constraints are given. The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds little value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Freeze' with a clear resource 'track' and provides a parenthetical explanation 'render all devices to audio for CPU optimization.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and its purpose, distinguishing it from read-only tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'for CPU optimization' implies a primary use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like flatten_track, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation via 'Get', implying no side effects, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, errors, or requirements. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, yet it only provides minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and a compact parameter list, front-loading the purpose and giving immediate clarity. No filler or redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two parameters, the description covers the basic functionality, but it omits the output structure (warp marker representation) and any usage context. The lack of an output schema makes this a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description gives one-line definitions for both parameters ('The index of the track', 'The index of the clip slot'), which is slightly more than the schema's bare titles. However, it does not specify indexing conventions or constraints, so it adds only marginal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get all warp markers from an audio clip', clearly identifying the action (get) and resource (warp markers) with specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_clip_warp_info or add_warp_marker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_warp_marker or delete_warp_marker. The description only states what it does, with no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, or whether it affects note timing only, leaving side effects unclear for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the core purpose in one sentence and then presenting a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the parameter list somewhat duplicates schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a destructive editing operation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers purpose and parameters. It omits behavioral details like reversibility, potential side effects on other note attributes, and any limitations, so an agent lacks essential context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining each parameter, especially grid with concrete examples ('0.25 = 16th notes, 0.5 = 8th notes, 1.0 = quarter notes'). However, track_index and clip_index definitions are minimal and largely restate the property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Quantize notes in a clip to a grid') and clearly identifies the resource being acted upon. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transpose_notes or humanize_clip_timing, which perform different note modifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The parameter list only explains inputs, not usage context or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the creation action and does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track index base), or error behavior. It also doesn't mention whether this is a safe read or mutating operation, though 'Create' implies mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the core purpose in one sentence and a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics but omits usage guidelines, prerequisites, or behavioral details. This leaves some gaps for an agent needing to know when to use it correctly. It's adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists both parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the raw schema which only provides types and defaults. 'List of track indices to group' clarifies the array's purpose, and 'Name for the group track' explains the string. However, it lacks details like zero-based indexing or constraints on valid indices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'group track', and specifies it contains the specified tracks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_midi_track or create_audio_track, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for grouping existing tracks, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get information' without specifying what information is returned, the output format, or any side effects, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too vague. It fails to specify what 'information' is returned for each scene (e.g., name, color, state), making it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already covers everything, and the description need not add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get information) and the specific resource (all scenes in the session). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scene_color or get_session_info by focusing on all scenes collectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without context, exclusions, or comparison to related get_* functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing return format, error behavior, or any side effects. For a read tool, more context is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the purpose front-loaded and a single parameter explanation. No wasted words; every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks a return value explanation or any context about what 'browser items' means. With no output schema and no additional behavioral info, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful parameter detail beyond the schema: it specifies the path format 'category/folder/subfolder' and notes that category must be an available browser category. The schema has no description, so this is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_browser_tree and browse_path by focusing on a specific path query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides path format details but does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the clip is empty or invalid, or what the return structure looks like. While the name implies a getter, the lack of explicit safety or error semantics is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with a single clear purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list that adds value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does and the parameters, but fails to describe the return format (e.g., an array of notes with pitch, velocity, duration, and timing properties) or error behavior when the clip doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for an agent that needs to process the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter names and types, but the description adds meaningful context: track_index is described as 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index as 'the index of the clip slot containing the clip'. This clarifies the role of each parameter, though it omits details like zero-based indexing or value ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all MIDI notes') and the resource ('a clip'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip and remove_notes, as the scope is retrieval of all existing notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_clip_loop or quantize_clip_notes. It simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, related operations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not cover side effects, reversibility, safety, or return values. For a mutation-like action, this is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a minimal parameter list. No wasted words; it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the short description is mostly adequate, but it lacks any guidance on scene identification or comparison with stop_clip. The absence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value documentation, but the description could still be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats the schema's parameter name with a minimal gloss ('the index of the scene to stop') but adds no valuable context like zero-based indexing, valid range, or relationship to other scene-related APIs. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('scene'), stating it stops all clips within a scene. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stop_clip (single clip) and fire_scene (launch scene).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (stopping all clips in a scene) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over stop_clip or fire_scene. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Toggle' implies a state switch but does not clarify whether it starts/stops recording, what the effect is on existing recordings, or any prerequisites. This lack of detail may leave the agent unsure about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core action in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete. It does not mention what the tool returns, what the current state will be after toggling, or how this relates to other recording tools. For a tool with zero parameters, the description should still provide context about the toggle's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the schema, so the description has nothing to add regarding parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion or irrelevant information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'toggle' and clearly identifies the resource as 'arrangement record mode'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'toggle_session_record' by explicitly naming the arrangement context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'toggle_session_record'. The description only states the function, leaving the user to infer usage context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic mutation (create) and the index parameter's meaning. It omits details such as whether the operation is undoable, if it adds a default scene name, or what happens to existing scenes when inserting at an index. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement followed by a parameter breakdown. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context. It does not mention return value, side effects on the session, or error conditions. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but would benefit from stating that a new scene is appended by default (since index defaults to -1) and possibly that it is an undoable operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides type and default for the index parameter, with no description. The description adds crucial meaning: 'The index to insert the scene at (-1 = end of list)'. This clarifies that the index is an insertion point and that -1 represents the end of the list, which is not self-evident from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a new scene.' The verb 'create' is specific and distinguishes it from scene-related siblings like delete_scene, duplicate_scene, fire_scene, and stop_scene. The resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that duplicate_scene might be appropriate for copying existing scenes, or that create_scene is for adding a new empty scene. The description only explains parameters, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a device is deleted, but does not mention irreversibility, whether the operation can be undone (there is an undo sibling), or any side effects on the track or device parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single clear sentence followed by a minimal parameter list. Every word earns its place without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks critical context such as index base, error behavior, whether the deletion is reversible, and any return value or confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description explains each parameter: track_index is 'the index of the track containing the device' and device_index is 'the index of the device to delete'. This adds meaningful context, though it does not clarify whether the indices are zero-based or one-based.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action as 'Delete a device from a track', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_clip, delete_track, and delete_scene by explicitly naming 'device' as the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toggle_device or move_device_left. The description merely states the action with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the core action (triggering a scene) and its immediate effect (playing clips), but lacks details about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., playback transport state), reversibility, or error behavior. For a mutation-like action, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action, followed by a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter means, but lacks context about session view concepts, related tools, or edge cases. It is not incomplete enough to be unusable, but also not richly detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a title for scene_index with no description. The description adds 'The index of the scene to fire', which clarifies the parameter's meaning but does not specify indexing convention (0-based/1-based) or valid range. This is minimal added value, hence a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Fire (trigger) a scene to play all clips in that row.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip (which targets individual clips) and stop_scene (which stops scenes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for launching scenes but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this tool versus fire_clip or other scene-related tools. The context 'play all clips in that row' signals its purpose, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fold (collapse) a group track,' which names the action but does not describe side effects, reversibility, or validation requirements. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one clear sentence and one parameter definition. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. It perfectly fits a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter mutation, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and the parameter, but lacks preconditions (e.g., track must be a group track) and any note about return value or state changes. Given no annotations and no output schema, completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that track_index is 'the index of the group track,' which is useful. However, it lacks details like zero-based indexing or how to obtain the index, making it only partially compensating.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Fold (collapse) a group track.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unfold_track, 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use this tool to collapse a group track. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely says 'add it to a clip' without explaining overwrite behavior, non-determinism of generation, or prerequisites like existing clips. It doesn't state whether existing notes are preserved or if the tool requires a pre-created clip. The mutation implications are under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence action summary followed by a clear parameter list with brief, useful explanations. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and parameters but lacks critical context: whether it returns a status, what happens if the target clip is missing, or whether generated notes overwrite existing content. It's minimally adequate but leaves functional gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: track_index (bass track), clip_index (clip slot), root (with MIDI example), scale_type (listing valid options), and length (unit beats). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles, though it omits bounds or edge-case behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate a bassline pattern and add it to a clip' clearly states the action (generate and add), the resource (bassline pattern in a clip), and differentiates from sibling tools like generate_drum_pattern. The specific musical context is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or generate_drum_pattern. The only hint is 'track_index should be a bass track', which is a parameter constraint rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not disclose whether this is a safe read-only operation, what exact loop settings are returned (e.g., loop start, loop end, enabled state), or any potential side effects. It only states 'Get the length and loop settings' without elaborating on the return structure or any behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding but leaves ambiguity about the exact structure of 'loop settings' and what the return value contains. For a tool this simple, the description is adequate but could be more complete by listing the specific fields or the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no parameter-related gaps exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'the length and loop settings of the arrangement,' using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('arrangement'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_arrangement_loop, which sets loop settings, and get_playback_position, which deals with playback position rather than arrangement length.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey safety and behavior. "Get information" clearly indicates a read-only operation, and "current view state" suggests a non-mutating snapshot. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether nulls/empty selections are possible, or how the view state is structured, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and subject, and the parenthetical (selected track, scene) adds useful scope without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not specify what the return value contains beyond a vague "view state," leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape. Given that the output schema is absent, the description should have provided more detail about the returned data (e.g., track ID, scene index, whether both are always present).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about what the parameters implicitly cover (selected track, scene), though no explicit parameter documentation is needed. The empty schema is fully covered by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("current view state"), with clarifying examples (selected track, scene). It clearly distinguishes itself from related getters like get_track_info or get_scene_color by focusing on the active view/selection state rather than querying a specific item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need the current UI selection state (selected track, scene), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like get_session_info or get_track_info. The context is clear enough for a zero-parameter read tool, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action (get available grooves) without detailing what 'available' means, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter, the description covers the basic action but omits important context such as the exact output format or what 'available' entails. Since there is no output schema, the description should have offered more detail, making this minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get available grooves from the groove pool' uses a specific verb (Get) and clear resource (grooves from the groove pool), making the purpose unmistakable. It also naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like apply_groove and commit_groove, which modify grooves rather than retrieve them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. For a simple getter, usage might be inferred, but explicit usage guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states what is retrieved but does not confirm it is side-effect-free, specify the units of the position (e.g., beats, seconds), or enumerate possible transport states. This adds little beyond the tool name, making the description insufficiently transparent for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that leads with the verb and clearly identifies the returned information. It contains no filler, repetition of the tool name, or unnecessary words—every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the general semantic content but lacks specifics such as the format of the playback position or the exact values of the transport state. This leaves some ambiguity about the response, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description is not required to explain parameter details and the schema already reflects no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current playback position and transport state'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_playback and stop_playback, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to playback control tools, nor does it exclude cases like when the transport is stopped or how it relates to jump_to_time. The agent is left without explicit decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get information,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe the returned data, potential side effects, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clear sentence with relevant clarification '(aux)' and no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It conveys scope and purpose but lacks detail on the return structure or how it relates to get_return_track_info, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially fully covered, so no parameter explanation is needed. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about all return/aux tracks, using a specific verb and resource. The word 'all' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_return_track_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_return_track_info or get_track_info. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another getter would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it implies a read-only operation by naming a getter, it does not explicitly disclose return format, error behavior, or that it has no side effects. However, the behavior is safely inferred from the tool's purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single opening sentence and one parameter definition. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the expected return format (e.g., string path) or potential error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity, this is not a major gap, but richer context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a basic explanation for track_index ('The index of the track'), which complements the schema's bare title. However, it lacks critical details such as whether the index is zero-based, valid ranges, or what happens with an invalid index. With 0% schema description coverage, more compensation was expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'output routing of a track'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track_input_routing and set_track_output_routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_available_outputs or get_track_input_routing. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify the return type, side effects, or safety characteristics. The description only states the condition being checked, without clarifying whether it is a read-only operation or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple boolean check and is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the core purpose but lacks explicit return value information. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it is only minimally adequate for an agent to understand what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics but also has no need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: checking if the session has unsaved changes. The verb 'check' and the specific resource 'session' with the property 'unsaved changes' make it distinct from sibling tools like get_session_info or undo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as undo, get_session_info, or when this check would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does not state whether playback is started/stopped, whether the move is immediate, or any other side effects. The agent is left to infer what 'jump' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence of purpose and one bullet for the parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning every character.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable. It explains the parameter fully, but lacks context on any side effects or prerequisites. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more detail on behavior would make it complete, but it is adequate for basic selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for parameter 'time', but the description compensates by explaining 'Position in beats to jump to'. This adds the crucial semantics of unit (beats) and meaning, far beyond the bare schema's type number.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Jump to a specific time in the arrangement.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_playback_position or start_playback, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, edge cases, or contexts where another tool (e.g., set_arrangement_loop, start_playback) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('move left') but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., what happens if the device is already leftmost), whether the action is reversible, or any side effects. There is no mention of return values or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence for the purpose and a structured list for parameters. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two integer parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential action and parameters. However, it omits details like zero-based vs. one-based indexing, what happens when the device is already leftmost, and whether the operation returns anything, which could be important for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a parameter list with brief meanings: 'track_index: The index of the track containing the device' and 'device_index: The index of the device to move.' This adds valuable semantic context that the schema lacks, though it does not clarify indexing conventions or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Move a device one position to the left in the device chain.' This is a specific verb+resource+direction, and it clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool move_device_right.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention constraints, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description simply explains the action without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the gain unit in dB and examples for negative/positive values, but does not state side effects, whether changes are reversible, what happens if indices are invalid, or any impact on playback. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single action sentence followed by a clean parameter list. Every line adds value, and the format makes it easy to scan. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks usage context, error behavior, and any reference to the corresponding getter tool. It is minimally viable but leaves several operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description manually lists all three parameters with explanatory text, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies 'gain' with dB examples but lacks crucial details like zero-based versus one-based indexing and how to find the correct indices. The explanations are serviceable but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set the gain of an audio clip.' This specific verb+resource construction distinguishes it from sibling tools, particularly get_clip_gain which reads the gain. The phrasing is unambiguous and immediately identifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies the tool is used to adjust clip gain, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (such as get_clip_gain to read the current gain). It also omits prerequisites like how to obtain track/clip indices, leaving usage context only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning reversibility, error handling, or whether the change is immediately applied. The pitch range is the only additional behavioral hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus a parameter list with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple setter with three parameters, and the description covers the essential parameter semantics. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, or relate to the sibling get_clip_pitch tool, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation, including the pitch range (-48 to +48). This adds value beyond the bare schema names, though it omits details like 0-based indexing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' and clearly names the resource 'pitch shift of an audio clip', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_clip_pitch and other set_clip_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_clip_pitch, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the verb and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful constraint that color is 0-69 in Ableton's palette, but it omits potential side effects, error behavior, whether the change is immediately applied or undoable, and what happens if scene_index is invalid. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter bullet list is efficient and free of fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential semantics. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether scene_index is zero-based, what happens on out-of-range input, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a simple tool, so some gaps are acceptable, but a fully complete description would mention these constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema: it explains that scene_index is 'the index of the scene' and color is 'the color index (0-69)' in Ableton's palette. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not explicitly state whether scene_index is zero-based, which is a common ambiguity in Ableton APIs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the color of a scene.' It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (scene) with the property (color). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_color or get_scene_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as scene existence, or any cue that one should use a getter first to verify the index. The description merely states the operation without contextual usage notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits side effects, error behavior, reversibility, or any requirement such as a valid track index. The description is a bare statement without contextual depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single declarative sentence followed by a two-item parameter list. Every sentence is necessary, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content. It fronts the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter setter, but leaves critical gaps: it does not specify whether track_index is zero-based, what happens if the index is out of range, or any immediate effect details. For an AI agent to use this correctly, additional context is needed, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as 'the index of the track to rename' and name as 'the new name for the track.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the name') and the specific resource ('a track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_clip_name by identifying the unique operation of renaming a track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., track must exist), nor does it differentiate from related tools like set_clip_name or set_scene_name. There is no usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the basic operation without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether soloing a track affects other tracks), error behavior for invalid track_index, or any state changes beyond the solo flag. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a brief opening sentence and a clear parameter list. No wasted words, and it is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the essential parameters and purpose. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that an agent would need to use the tool safely, such as whether solo mutates other tracks or what happens with invalid indices. Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'track_index: The index of the track' and 'solo: True to solo, False to unsolo'. This clarifies the meaning and valid boolean values, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the solo state of a track.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('solo state of a track'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_arm. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent has no information to decide between solo, mute, or arm except from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Toggle session record mode' implies a state change but does not explain side effects, such as whether it starts/stops recording, affects transport, or requires any preconditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter toggle, the description states the core action, but lacks behavioral detail and usage guidance that no annotations provide. It is minimally viable but leaves ambiguity about practical implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate when parameter semantics are not applicable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb 'toggle' and resource 'session record mode', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'toggle_arrangement_record' and related recording tools. The purpose is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toggle_arrangement_record', 'start_recording', or 'stop_recording'. There is no context about the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this operation modifies existing notes, whether it is destructive, or if it preserves timing/velocity. The semitones direction is helpful, but the overall behavioral impact remains undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one line plus parameter list) and front-loads the action. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter list could arguably be left to the schema since it replicates structure; however, the added semantics justify its inclusion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool, the description is minimally viable. It explains what and parameters, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects on existing notes, return value, or undo guidance). Given no annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness, but it is acceptable for a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only types and names with 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains track_index, clip_index, and semitones with meaningful context, including the directionality of semitones (positive up, negative down). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action: 'Transpose all notes in a clip.' This uses a specific verb ('transpose') and identifies the resource ('all notes in a clip'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip, remove_notes, and quantize_clip_notes by focusing on transposition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites (e.g., selecting a clip with notes), or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the index insertion behavior but omits side effects, error conditions, or return value. 'Create' implies mutation but no deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter definition. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter create tool, the description covers purpose and parameter, but lacks information about return values, failure modes, or undo behavior. No output schema or annotations compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the index parameter: 'The index to insert the track at (-1 = end of list)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Create a new audio track in the Ableton session' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling create_midi_track and other create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_midi_track. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only restates the action and parameter semantics, and does not disclose side effects, session requirements, or behavior when index is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose followed by a focused parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks some detail about side effects and alternatives, but is adequate for a simple creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'index' parameter's meaning and the sentinel value -1, which the schema only lists as a default. This is meaningful additional context for the sole parameter, though the explanation remains brief.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new MIDI track in the Ableton session,' using a specific verb and resource. The 'MIDI' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_audio_track and create_group_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the action itself, so the description offers little decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action but doesn't disclose whether existing notes in the clip are overwritten or appended, what happens if the track isn't a drum track, or any side effects. This ambiguity is significant for a generative mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four-line description followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with the purpose, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core purpose and parameters, but lacks crucial details for reliable use: overwrite vs append behavior, error handling, and effect on existing clip contents. Without annotations or output schema, these gaps make the tool incomplete for an agent to confidently predict outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter descriptions in the tool description are the only semantic source. It explains each parameter meaningfully: style examples, length in beats, and the drum track constraint. It doesn't provide enum ranges or constraints, but adds substantial value beyond raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it generates a drum pattern and adds it to a clip, with specific target tracking via track_index and clip_index. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similar generate_bassline tool, but the resource and action are specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context that track_index should be a drum track, which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like generate_bassline, so it misses the exclusion part.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. No additional context like performance or error behavior is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, consisting of a single purpose statement followed by a short parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter values. However, it lacks explicit details about the return structure beyond 'hierarchical tree,' which could be inferred but is not fully described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a default value and no description, but the tool description lists all allowed values ('all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects') and explains that category_type is the 'Type of categories to get.' This adds meaningful information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical tree of browser categories'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_browser_items_at_path. It clearly states the tool's function in one sentence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browse_path or search_browser. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred over other browser-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. However, it merely restates the tool's name without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it can fail if no session is loaded, what the return format is, or whether it is side-effect free. The only useful implicit signal is that it is a getter, but that is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough to convey the essential function. It could add a note about edge cases, but for a plain getter this level of detail is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The base score of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool where the parameter semantics are inherently clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the file path of the current session, which is specific and unambiguous. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'file path of current session' distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_session_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context about session files. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or error conditions. It merely states the action, similar to the 'update_drive' example that scored 2. The valid parameter values add some value, but that belongs to parameter semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear parameter list. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff. It is well-structured for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it explains all parameters and valid values. The only missing context is that a clip must exist and perhaps that warp mode is typically set after warping, but these are minor for this tool. It is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by providing a parameter list with meanings for all three parameters. It clarifies track_index and clip_index, and lists valid warp_mode values (beats, tones, texture, repitch, complex, complex_pro). This goes beyond the schema's bare field names, though it could be more explicit about indexing (e.g., 0-based).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the warp mode of an audio clip' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the valid warp mode values, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clip_warp_info. This is an unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., clip must be an audio clip, warp mode must be enabled), and no exclusions are stated. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action of setting a value, with no information about side effects, error conditions, return values, or reversibility. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the parameters and their allowed values for a simple setter, but lacks any mention of behavioral side effects or return behavior despite the absence of annotations and output schema. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds critical parameter details not present in the schema: it explains that track_index is 'the index of the track' and enumerates the valid monitoring values ('in, auto, off'). This significantly compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('monitoring mode of a track'), distinguishing it from sibling setters like set_track_mute or set_track_volume. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_track_monitoring or other set_track_* tools. No prerequisites or contexts are given beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Start playing' without detailing consequences such as whether playback resumes from the current position, if it conflicts with recording, or if it requires an existing session. This is a minimal behavioral description with no additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Start' and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. This exemplifies appropriate conciseness for a simple action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, straightforward action), the description is nearly complete. It conveys the essential operation. However, it lacks any nuance such as what state the session must be in or what happens if playback is already active, so it is not a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no parameter meaning that needs explaining. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start playing the Ableton session' clearly identifies the action (start) and the resource (Ableton session playback), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_playback and start_recording. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, and while the usage is implied for a basic transport action, the lack of any contextual notes leaves the agent without information about scenarios where this might be inappropriate (e.g., during recording).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of toggling a device on/off, but does not disclose potential side effects, return value, error conditions, or behavior when the device is already in the desired state. This is a minimal level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for the action followed by parameter explanations. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two required integer parameters, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. It explains the action and the meaning of each parameter. However, without an output schema, it does not specify what the tool returns after toggling, but this is minor for a state-changing operation. The lack of return information and error handling nuances prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides parameter names and types, with no descriptions. The description adds meaningful context by explaining track_index as 'the index of the track containing the device' and device_index as 'the index of the device on the track.' This helps the agent understand the hierarchical relationship, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Toggle a device on or off.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_device_left, delete_device, and get_device_parameters, which perform different actions on devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where toggling is appropriate, or exclusions compared to other device manipulation tools. The description simply states the action without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that notes are added, but does not explain whether existing notes are preserved or replaced, how invalid notes are handled, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a clear parameter list without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides basic operation and parameter details but misses important context like behavior with existing notes and return value. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by listing each parameter and explaining the structure of the 'notes' objects (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, though it omits details like units or ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Add MIDI notes to a clip.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_notes or transpose_notes. No ambiguity exists about what the tool accomplishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_notes or quantize_clip_notes. There are no exclusions or conditions provided, so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral effects. It only states the basic action but does not disclose what happens after capture (e.g., whether it creates a new clip, modifies an existing one, requires an armed track, or is undoable). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and uses a familiar analogy for clarity. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description gives the core purpose but lacks critical context such as expected behavior, prerequisites, or return values. Since there is no output schema or annotations, these gaps reduce completeness, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates the impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter semantic information needed because the input schema is empty and description coverage is 100% by default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Capture') with a clear resource ('MIDI that was played recently'), making the tool's action immediately understandable. The Ableton analogy reinforces the concept and helps distinguish this from the recording-related siblings like start_recording and toggle_session_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage scenario (retrieving unrecorded recent MIDI) through the Ableton Capture analogy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_recording or undo. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and parameters, without mentioning side effects, validation rules, return values, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a create operation, this leaves significant gaps about what actually happens.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the action plus two bullet points for parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter create tool, the description covers the essentials: what it does and the meanings of parameters. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs. alternatives), behavioral details (e.g., whether name is optional, happens if time is out of range), and any note about success/return. It is adequate but not complete given the absence of annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'time' is 'Position in beats' and 'name' is 'Name for the locator.' The schema only names the fields without descriptions (coverage 0%), so this is valuable. It does not specify units for time beyond beats, which is clarified, and the semantics for name are basic but clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new locator/cue point.' The verb 'create' and the resource 'locator/cue point' are specific and naturally distinguish it from siblings like get_locators and delete_locator. The parameter list reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to add a new locator. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., get_locators to list, delete_locator to remove) or mention any prerequisites like an open session. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning return value format, potential errors, or prerequisites such as the existence of the track/send. For a getter, some side-effect safety is inherent, but the lack of return-type or failure-mode information is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and to the point: one sentence for the action and a clear parameter list. No redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two parameters, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, the absence of an output schema means the description should have mentioned the return format or value type, which is not provided. It is functional but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'track_index' as the source track and 'send_index' with the 0=A, 1=B convention. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable and covers both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('send level'), and the context ('from a track to a return track'), clearly distinguishing it from its sibling 'set_send_level'. The parameter explanations further clarify the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the verb 'Get' as a read operation, and the context of send levels is clear. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'set_send_level', nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the action itself, omitting side effects (e.g., overwriting existing effects), error conditions, return values, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence plus a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials but misses behavioral details like what happens on success/failure, whether existing effects are replaced, and any constraints on the return track. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more disclosure would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters: return_index is defined as the target return track index, and uri is explained as coming from browse_path or search_browser. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could specify indexing behavior (e.g., zero-based).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Load... onto a return track') with clear resource (browser item/effect) and destination (return track), differentiating it from siblings like load_item_to_track. It also explains the URI source, adding useful context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied ('by URI' and 'obtained from browse_path or search_browser'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It gives a prerequisite but not a comparative guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without describing edge cases (e.g., what if the device is already at the rightmost position), side effects, or preconditions. This is minimal transparency beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one for the action and one for the parameter list. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation (two integer indices, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks behavioral context such as error conditions, whether the operation swaps or shifts, and index constraints, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds definitions for both parameters: 'track_index: The index of the track containing the device' and 'device_index: The index of the device to move.' This clarifies the role of each parameter, though it does not specify indexing base (0-based or 1-based) or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Move a device one position to the right in the device chain.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'move_device_left' and other device-related tools. The scope is exact and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context by stating the direction of movement ('to the right') and the location ('device chain'), making it easy to infer when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use move_device_left for the opposite direction'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says notes are removed in a range, but does not mention side effects (e.g., permanent deletion), prerequisites (clip must exist), or behavior on invalid inputs. This is a mutation tool, so the lack of such context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a parameter list that adds necessary semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the parameters and basic purpose but lacks context on when to use it, behavior on edge cases, or how the range interacts with note data. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter list in the description provides essential meaning. It explains each parameter's role: track_index/clip_index as locators, from_time/time_span in beats, from_pitch as MIDI pitch, and pitch_span as count. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults, though it could add details like inclusiveness or coordinate system.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Remove notes from a clip') and a scope ('within a specified range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_all_notes (which removes all notes) by implying selective removal. The verb and resource are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over remove_all_notes or add_notes_to_clip, but the phrase 'within a specified range' implies it's for partial removal. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, so usage guidance is merely implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only says 'Select a clip slot' without disclosing effects (e.g., changes current selection), prerequisites, return values, or whether it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear, minimal parameter list. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple selection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and all parameters. However, it could further clarify whether selection replaces the current clip selection or just targets the slot, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters explicitly: track_index as 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index as 'the index of the clip slot.' This provides clear meaning beyond the raw integer types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Select a clip slot' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like select_track, select_scene, and select_rack_chain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description only defines the action and parameters, with no mention of selection context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, invalid inputs, or interaction with other tools (e.g., get_clip_color). Given no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning and specifying the color range (0-69). It adds value beyond the schema's bare property titles, though it omits details like zero-based indexing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set the color of a clip' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_clip_color and set_track_color. It is unambiguous about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the purpose statement (set a clip's color), but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the clip name is set, without mentioning side effects, permissions, error conditions, reversibility, or when the change takes effect. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four lines total: a one-line purpose statement followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with no output schema, the description covers the parameters and core purpose adequately. However, it omits error conditions, valid ranges, and any side effects, making it only minimally complete for an agent to invoke without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only types and titles with no explanatory text. The description compensates by defining each parameter: track_index as the index of the track containing the clip, clip_index as the index of the clip slot, and name as the new name. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Set the name of a clip,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_track_name, set_scene_name, and set_clip_color because it explicitly targets clips and their names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. However, the tool name and description make the intended use self-evident, so usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only repeats the action without disclosing behavior such as whether the change is immediate, persists, or requires any permissions. The volume range is parameter semantics, not behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, leading with the primary action and then providing parameter details in a structured list. Every sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is adequate. It could benefit from a note that this affects the global master output, but that is largely implied by the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description enriches the schema by providing the valid range (0.0 to 1.0) and Ableton's default (0.85), which is valuable information beyond the bare schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('master track volume'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume and set_master_pan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the volume range (0.0 to 1.0) but does not mention whether return_index is zero-based, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. The mutating nature is apparent but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes a clean parameter list, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and parameters. However, it omits details like zero-based indexing, validation behavior, and prerequisites, leaving some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters: return_index as 'the index of the return track' and volume as 'the volume level (0.0 to 1.0)'. This adds meaningful range information beyond the bare schema, though indexing base is not specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the volume of a return track.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from siblings like set_track_volume and set_return_pan by specifying 'return track'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (for return tracks) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not the effects (e.g., whether the change is immediate, affects playback, or is reversible). There is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or safety concerns. The description is too minimal for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Parameters' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is the only place where the parameter meaning is explained. It earns its place with the BPM detail, so no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It does not explain the return value, but setters typically return nothing meaningful. It lacks context like tempo constraints or side effects, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'tempo' as a required number, providing no semantics. The description adds that tempo is 'The new tempo in BPM,' which gives essential units and meaning. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, making the parameter sufficiently clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the tempo of the Ableton session.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and target, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that set other session properties (e.g., set_track_name, set_master_volume). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though there are no direct alternatives for setting tempo. The intended use is implied by the description, but it lacks context such as session state requirements, allowable tempo ranges, or relationships to other tools like metronome or playback controls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the boolean arm parameter (True to arm, False to disarm) but does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or the indexing convention for track_index (e.g., zero-based vs. one-based), which is crucial in audio software. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a simple parameter list. No unnecessary words, and the key action is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but it lacks important context such as the indexing convention, track type constraints, or any behavioral notes. It is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully inform an agent without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly defining both parameters: track_index as 'the index of the track' and arm with its meaning. This adds clear semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though it could be richer (e.g., specifying index bounds).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the arm (record enable) state of a track.' It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('arm state of a track'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_solo by focusing on the unique arm action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for arming or disarming a track for recording, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unarm_all or set_track_volume. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, making it merely adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the color index range (0-69) but does not mention error handling, whether the track must exist, zero vs one-based indexing, or any side effects beyond the color change. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise two-sentence description plus a clear parameter list. No unnecessary words. The operation is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core. However, it lacks details on index base, error behavior, and track type applicability. No annotations mean the description alone must provide complete context, so it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are described: track_index as the track's index and color as an index into Ableton's palette (0-69). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare integer types. However, it does not specify zero-based vs one-based indexing for track_index.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Set the color of a track' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like set_clip_color and set_scene_color by specifying track. The color index range adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied from the name and description: use when you need to change a track's color. No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, nor does it distinguish from related tools like get_track_color or set_clip_color.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive), error handling for invalid track_index or routing_type, or reversibility. The optional routing_channel is noted, but the mutation behavior is not elaborated, which is a significant gap for a setter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every line contributes information, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It earns full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description provides the core operation and parameter semantics, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is not fully self-contained; an agent would need to infer error behavior and compatibility. It is adequate but has clear gaps, making it a minimum viable description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so by listing all three parameters with meaningful explanations. It clarifies track_index as the index of the track, routing_type as the output type with a pointer to get_available_outputs for options, and routing_channel as optional. This adds genuine value beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of specifying value formats or allowed patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource statement ('Set the output routing of a track') and the parameter list clarifies the exact operation. The name and sibling tools (e.g., set_track_input_routing, get_track_output_routing) make the distinction clear, so the tool is unambiguously identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is the parenthetical reference to get_available_outputs, which implies a prerequisite step to discover routing options. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the usage context only partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it permanently modifies the session, what happens if there is nothing to undo, or if it affects the undo history). For a mutating tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Undo' and clearly states the resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks essential context about behavioral implications (e.g., mutation, error states, prerequisites) which would be important for an agent invoking this action, though the simplicity of the tool lowers the requirement somewhat.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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%. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are needed. Given the 0-parameter baseline of 4, the description meets expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Undo' with the resource 'the last operation in Ableton', clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'redo' by explicitly saying 'undo' which is the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you want to revert the last action in Ableton. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as limitations (e.g., cannot undo beyond a certain point) or comparison to adjacent tools like 'redo' or 'capture_midi'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action but does not disclose what happens if the clip slot already contains a clip, whether the new clip is empty, or any side effects. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the essential function and parameters. However, it is incomplete regarding behavior on existing clips and the state of the created clip (e.g., empty, length defaults). While not a complex tool, the lack of annotations or output schema leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains all three parameters (track_index, clip_index, length) with their meanings and provides a default value for length. The input schema has zero description coverage, so this fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a new MIDI clip' and specifies the target as 'the specified track and clip slot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_clip, duplicate_clip, and add_notes_to_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when a clip already exists in the slot or when adding notes to an existing clip. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete a warp marker' which implies a mutating operation, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior (e.g., if the marker doesn't exist), or any confirmation requirements. For a destructive action, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. No extra filler words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter delete operation without an output schema, the description covers the action and all parameter meanings. It doesn't explain edge cases or error handling, but given the simplicity and clear sibling context (add/get warp markers), it is nearly complete. A full score would require noting what happens if the marker is absent or whether the operation is undoable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides parameter titles, but the description adds meaningful definitions for each parameter: track_index is the track index, clip_index is the clip slot index, and beat_time is the beat time position of the marker. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and provides enough context to understand how to specify the target warp marker.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Delete a warp marker from an audio clip.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_warp_marker and get_warp_markers. It immediately conveys exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool (deleting a warp marker), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of add_warp_marker' or note prerequisites like the marker must exist. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the destination (next empty slot) but omits important behavioral details such as what happens if no empty slot exists, whether it overwrites, or what the function returns. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence and parameter explanations listed neatly. No waste or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but still leaves gaps: no mention of error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist), or whether the operation is undoable. It is not fully complete for an agent to reliably invoke in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters: track_index is 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index is 'the index of the clip slot containing the clip.' This adds clear meaning absent from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Duplicate' with resource 'clip' and scope 'to the next empty slot,' making it specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_clip or duplicate_scene. The action and target are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user wants to copy a clip to an empty slot, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_clip, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the input parameters (root, scale_type) but does not disclose the return format, such as whether it returns MIDI note numbers, note names, or an array. Edge cases and validation behavior are also omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean bulleted parameter list. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The input parameters are well-documented, but the description is incomplete regarding return values and usage examples. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, making it only partially complete for a simple utility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining 'root' as a MIDI note number in the 0-127 range with middle C reference, and 'scale_type' with an exhaustive list of options. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the notes in a musical scale', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_clip_notes, which retrieves notes from a clip, by focusing on scale construction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (whenever scale notes are needed) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternatives. It's a self-contained utility, but lacks clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'checks' connectivity and responsiveness, but offers no details on what 'responsive' entails, whether it is a read-only operation, or what the return format/error behavior might be. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely gates other operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. It is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description does not compensate for the missing output schema. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a status object, or error details), which is essential for an agent to interpret the result. Given the lack of annotations and structured output definitions, the description is incomplete for making informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Ableton Live being connected and responsive'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which serve the same connectivity/health check function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case: verifying whether Ableton Live is connected and responsive before performing other actions. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, but the context is straightforward considering no sibling tool overlaps with this functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that timing variation is random and gives an 'amount' parameter, but does not mention whether the operation is destructive to original timing, whether it affects all notes or selected notes, or how the randomness is distributed. No prerequisites, reversibility, or side effects are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal and efficiently structured: a single-purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. There is zero fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the tool's purpose and parameters adequately, but for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and the precise effect on clip data (e.g., whether note durations are also altered). It does not address the relationship to similar tools, leaving some contextual gaps for an AI agent deciding on invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides comprehensive parameter explanations that directly compensate for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage). It explicitly defines 'track_index' and 'clip_index', and gives concrete interpretative guidance for 'amount' with examples ('0.05 = subtle, 0.1 = moderate, 0.2 = heavy'). This fully clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema's bare field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add random timing variation to notes in a clip for a more human feel.' This uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('notes in a clip'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like humanize_clip_velocity (velocity vs. timing) and quantize_clip_notes (quantization vs. randomization).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. It only implies usage through the phrase 'for a more human feel.' There is no mention of preferring this over apply_groove or quantize_clip_notes, so usage context is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the two-step loading sequence but does not mention side effects, preconditions (e.g., track must exist), or whether it replaces existing devices. The lack of safety/disruptiveness info is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. No redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does and what each parameter is. Minor missing details (error handling, exact behavior) are not critical for this straightforward action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter with meaningful context and examples (e.g., rack_uri: 'Drums/Drum Rack', kit_path: 'drums/acoustic/kit1'). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, adding format and usage guidance beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific function: 'Load a drum rack and then load a specific drum kit into it.' This identifies a specific verb (load), resource (drum rack and kit), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect, which are more general.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (setting up a drum kit on a track) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like load_instrument_or_effect or load_item_to_track. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without revealing side effects, failure modes (e.g., no undone operation exists), or redo history limitations, which are relevant for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the description adequately covers the core function. However, it does not mention preconditions (like requiring a prior undo) or redo history behavior, leaving some contextual gaps that could matter in edge cases. Despite this, the description is mostly complete for a basic redo operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (an empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameter details to add beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'redo' with a clear resource 'the last undone operation' and context 'in Ableton'. This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'undo' and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly say when to use it (e.g., after an undo) or mention alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the context is clear enough for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must carry the behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permissions, or how to verify the state change, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter explanation in a single line. Every word earns its place, with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could reference get_metronome_state for a more complete picture, but the tool's simplicity makes the existing description sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains 'enabled: True to enable, False to disable', adding clear meaning beyond the input schema's bare title 'Enabled'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Turn the metronome on or off' clearly states the action (turn on/off) and resource (metronome). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_metronome_state, which is the read counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied from the verb 'turn' and the 'enabled' parameter, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus get_metronome_state or any other alternatives. There is no explicit exclusion or contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and parameter constraints; it does not disclose side effects, return behavior, error conditions, or safety considerations. This is a bare minimum for a setter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence is informative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the core operation and parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value behavior and any limitations. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent that might need to verify success or handle edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index as source track, send_index as corresponding to return track index, and level with a 0.0-1.0 range. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Set the send level from a track to a return track.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_send_level and set_return_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_send_level or set_return_volume. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Delete a clip' without noting whether the operation is irreversible, whether it works in session or arrangement view, or whether it removes the entire clip slot. The parameter descriptions add indexing context but no deeper behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second is a tight parameter list. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks crucial context such as reversibility, session vs arrangement behavior, or what happens if the clip slot is already empty. Given no annotations or output schema, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: track_index is 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index is 'the index of the clip slot containing the clip.' This adds meaning beyond bare integer types, though it omits zero/one-based indexing details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a clip from a clip slot,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools like delete_track, delete_scene, and delete_device by targeting clips and their slots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for deleting a clip from a clip slot, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as remove_notes, but the scope is unambiguous enough for a basic delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating side effects and return behavior. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get information', but it does not disclose the structure of the response, units of volume/pan, or whether the devices list includes additional detail. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential information without any filler. It is front-loaded and earns its place by naming the key fields (volume, pan, devices). No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete, but it could be enhanced by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., a dictionary with keys). The lack of an output schema means the description should more thoroughly explain what the caller receives, which it only partially does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters. By the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds value by specifying what information is returned, which is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('information about the master track'), while also listing the main fields covered (volume, pan, devices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info (which is likely generic) and from setters like set_master_volume, 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the 'Get' verb implies read-only retrieval, and the existence of sibling setters (set_master_volume, set_master_pan) makes the usage context implicitly clear. No explicit exclusions are provided, so it does not fully meet the bar for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('load onto a track') without revealing potential side effects, whether it replaces existing devices, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose and a two-item parameter list. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the two parameters and prerequisite source for the URI, making it minimally viable. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, and how it differs from other load tools, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining track_index as the target track index and uri as the browser item URI, also indicating how to obtain the URI. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though track index zero-based semantics are not specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads a browser item (instrument or effect) onto a track by URI, which is a specific verb+resource+method. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'load_item_to_return' (which targets return tracks) and 'load_instrument_or_effect' (which likely uses a different mechanism).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating the URI must be obtained from browse_path or search_browser, implying a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 clearly states the operation and parameter meanings, but does not disclose potential side effects, constraints (e.g., end must be greater than start), or whether the change applies immediately to playback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-line summary followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It lacks details on edge cases or return value, but these are not critical for a straightforward setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has empty descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides meaningful semantics for each parameter: start/end in beats and enabled as a boolean with a default. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'sets the arrangement loop region' with a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_loop by the 'arrangement' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, or any preconditions. It does not mention related tools like set_clip_loop or get_arrangement_length, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (set panning) and parameter ranges, but does not mention side effects, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., valid return_index), or whether the change is immediately applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. No unnecessary information is included, and the structure is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. However, it does not note potential failure modes or that the return track must exist, which would be useful for an agent invoking this tool blindly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains both parameters, including the exact range for pan (-1.0 to 1.0) and the meaning of return_index. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this complete parameter documentation is essential and well done.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Set the panning') on a specific resource ('return track'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_master_pan. It is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for return tracks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action and lists parameters without disclosing side effects, validation behavior, whether the change is immediate or reversible, or any requirements beyond the parameter hints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the purpose in one clear sentence. The parameter list is tidy, uses consistent formatting, and contains no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the essential parameters are covered and the cross-reference to get_available_inputs is helpful. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means behavioral details like error conditions, side effects, and return values are missing, leaving the description only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining track_index, routing_type, and routing_channel. It notably marks routing_channel as optional and cross-references get_available_inputs for routing_type values, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' and resource 'input routing of a track', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_input_routing and set_track_output_routing. The action and target are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to set a track's input routing) and includes a helpful directive to call get_available_inputs to discover routing_type options. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like get_track_input_routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the core action and parameter semantics but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or idempotency. For a setter, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a neat parameter list. It is compact, front-loaded, and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, given the absence of annotations, it could have mentioned behavioral details like immediate effect or error handling, though these may be beyond scope for such a basic setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as the index of the track, and mute with its boolean semantics (True to mute, False to unmute). This goes significantly beyond the input schema, which only provides types and titles, ensuring correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the mute state of a track' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_solo. The parameter list further clarifies the scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied from the purpose: if you want to mute/unmute a track, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It adds the scoping context 'in the arrangement,' indicating a read-only query. However, it does not disclose return format, potential side effects, or error behavior. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it maximally concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently states the purpose and scope. It could mention the return type, but the verb 'Get' implies a list of locators, making it complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The rubric specifies a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description does not add irrelevant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies resource 'locators/cue points' with scope 'in the arrangement.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_locator and delete_locator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a read operation to retrieve locators, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling tools suggest different operations, but no direct comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful context about the volume scale and default (0.0 silent, 1.0 unity gain, 0.85 default), which aids understanding. However, it does not disclose whether the change is immediate, undoable, or has side effects, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does and what the parameters mean without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: purpose and parameter details. It lacks error behavior or how to obtain track indices, but these are beyond the minimal requirements for this tool type, making it fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains track_index as 'the index of the track' and volume with a clear range and default, making the parameters understandable. Track_index could be more specific about indexing scheme, but the volume detail is strong.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the volume of a track with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_master_volume and set_return_volume by explicitly targeting regular tracks, even without naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_master_volume or set_send_level. Usage is implied by the track resource, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, making this minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or return format. It adds no context beyond the basic action, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should clarify the return value format (e.g., percentage or 0-1 scale). This is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about the output. Otherwise, the description is complete for a zero-parameter getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is used when there are no parameters, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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) and resource (CPU load of Ableton). It is specific and distinguishes itself from other getters in the sibling list, as no other tool targets CPU load.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is self-evident: use when you need the current CPU load of Ableton. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear and unambiguous for a zero-parameter read-only getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not specify the return format (e.g., a boolean true/false) or any potential side effects. It is minimally transparent but lacks details that would fully prepare an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Get the current metronome state', with no unnecessary words or filler. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, delivering the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is relatively complete in stating the action, but it lacks detail about the returned value's semantics. The agent is left uncertain whether the state is a boolean, string, or enum. This gap prevents a higher score, though the simplicity of the tool limits the impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, meaning there is no parameter information to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the current metronome state' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metronome state'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'set_metronome' tool. It precisely states what the tool does with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is clear: this is the read-only counterpart to 'set_metronome' and is intended for retrieving the current metronome state. No exclusions or alternatives are explicitly mentioned, but the get/set distinction is self-evident from the name and description, so clear context without explicit alternatives merits a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action (adding random variation) but does not mention whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it applies to all notes or selected notes, or any side effects. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but the behavioral depth is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary parameter details in a scannable format. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description covers its core function and all parameters. It could mention whether it modifies notes in place or returns anything, but the intent is clear. Missing a note about undo capability or determinism prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all parameter meaning must come from the description. The description provides helpful explanations for each parameter, especially 'amount' with concrete examples of +/-10% and +/-20%. This fully compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: adding random velocity variation to notes in a clip. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('notes in a clip'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like humanize_clip_timing by focusing on velocity. The purpose is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (for humanizing velocity) simply by its wording. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling humanize_clip_timing makes the distinction obvious. The context is clear enough for selecting this tool, though it lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states this is a setter (mutation), but it does not provide additional context such as whether the change is undoable, whether it affects live playback, or if there are any side effects. The pan range is disclosed, which adds some detail, but other behavioral traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter breakdown. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what the parameter means. It could be enhanced by noting that it modifies the master track's pan during playback or that it complements set_master_volume, but for a basic setter, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description thoroughly explains the 'pan' parameter with a concrete range (-1.0 to 1.0), the meaning of values (left, right, center), and an example (0.0 is center). The schema only provides type 'number' with no description, so the description fully compensates for the missing schema-level documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Set the master track panning,' which clearly identifies the specific verb (set), the resource (master track), and the property (panning). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_return_pan, which target other tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for adjusting the master track's pan, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_track_pan or set_return_pan. It lacks exclusions or contextual guidance, so while the usage is inferable, it is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary action (stop playback), but does not mention related behaviors such as whether the playhead resets, whether recording is also stopped, or whether the action is reversible. For a simple stop action, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, five words, with no filler or repetition. It fully conveys the core purpose in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple, well-defined action, the description is sufficiently complete. Users and agents understand exactly what the tool does without needing additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist, and the schema already confirms an empty properties object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and clear resource ('playing the Ableton session'), which unambiguously identifies this as the global transport stop action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like stop_clip and stop_scene by referencing 'session' rather than clips or scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Ableton session' implies this stops the main playback transport, distinct from clip-specific or scene-specific stops. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion outcome and the prerequisite but does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what occurs if the track is not frozen. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences plus a parameter bullet. It front-loads the core purpose, then the prerequisite, and then the parameter explanation. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter meaning. It could add notes on error behavior or undo capabilities, but for the tool's complexity, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explicitly explaining 'track_index: The index of the track to flatten' and adds context ('must be frozen first') that informs parameter validity. Some details like zero-based indexing are still implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb ('flatten') and resource ('frozen track'), and clarifies with a parenthetical 'convert freeze to permanent audio'. This distinguishes it from the inverse sibling operation `freeze_track`, 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit prerequisite: 'The track must be frozen first', which tells the agent when it is appropriate to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contraindications beyond the prerequisite, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the mutation ('set') and the valid pan range, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, undoability, or persistence. It is minimally transparent but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with a clean parameter list. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what it does, parameter meanings, and acceptable values. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. It thoroughly explains both parameters: track_index as 'the index of the track' and pan with a specific range from -1.0 to 1.0 including center. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set) and target resource (panning of a track), distinguishing it from siblings like set_master_pan and set_return_pan. The verb+resource construction is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting a track's pan but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of related tools or prerequisites, but for a simple setter, the context is fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the primary action but adds no details about side effects, prerequisites, or reversibility. The behavior is simple and fully described, but no extra context is provided beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded. There is no redundant filler; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what it does and when to use it. It could have mentioned return behavior, but that is not necessary for this type of action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, the score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Unarm all tracks in the session' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_arm which operate on individual tracks. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Useful before recording to ensure only specific tracks will record' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jpoindexter/ableton-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jpoindexter/ableton-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jpoindexter/ableton-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jpoindexter/ableton-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jpoindexter/ableton-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server