get_available_outputs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.