get_current_view

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.