get_available_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.