AbletonMCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists, such as multiple automation-related tools (add_automation_points, create_automation, automate_mixer) and several analysis tools (analyze_mix, analyze_track, analyze_wav_file_tool). Detailed descriptions mitigate confusion, keeping ambiguity low for an experienced agent.
Naming Consistency4/5Tools predominantly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_tracks, create_clip, set_tempo). Minor inconsistencies like 'add_automation_points' vs 'create_automation' and the use of 'setup_sidechain' instead of 'set_sidechain' slightly disrupt uniformity, but the overall scheme is clear and predictable.
Tool Count2/5With 120 tools, the server is excessively large for most use cases. While Ableton Live is complex, this number overwhelms typical workflows and includes many highly specialized tools (e.g., set_chain_pan, mute_chain) that feel redundant. A more focused set of ~30-50 tools would be more coherent.
Completeness5/5The toolset covers virtually every aspect of Ableton Live, including session management, clip and device manipulation, automation, routing, mixing analysis, MIDI generation, audio capture, and project lifecycle (save/undo). Only minor gaps like groove settings or advanced warp modes are missing, making it exceptionally comprehensive.
Average 3.4/5 across 120 of 120 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'completely remove' but does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or the effect on the clip. With no annotations provided, the description should convey such behavioral traits; it fails to do so adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could include additional information (e.g., parameter hints) without becoming overly verbose, so it is adequate but not optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (track_index, slot_index, envelope_index) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Completely remove an automation envelope from a clip' uses a specific verb 'remove' and names the resource 'automation envelope from a clip'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clear_automation_envelope' and 'remove_automation_point' by implying full deletion rather than clearing or point removal. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'clear_automation_envelope' or 'remove_automation_point'. The description lacks usage context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting details like whether the list is flat or hierarchical, performance implications, or whether it returns device details or just identifiers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary details about parameters and context, making it less useful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it still fails to cover parameter semantics and usage context. The minimal description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of track_index, device_index, or chain_index. An agent cannot infer what these indices refer to or how to obtain them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List devices inside a specific rack chain' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (devices inside a rack chain). It distinguishes from siblings like list_chains (which lists chains) and list_devices (which may list all devices), but could be more explicit about the hierarchical context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like get_chain_details or list_devices, nor does it specify prerequisites or 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool toggles mute state but does not disclose side effects, such as audio output changes or visual feedback, nor does it clarify if the operation is instantaneous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it insufficient for a tool with four required parameters and no schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four required parameters with zero documentation and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, indices, or how to obtain them, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no context about parameters like 'track_index', 'device_index', 'chain_index', or 'muted'. The agent receives no help beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: mute or unmute a rack chain. It identifies the resource type and the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'mute_drum_pad' or 'enable_device'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 or any prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate 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?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. For a creation tool, this information is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimal. It fails to explain what the return track is initialized with or any default behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning to the 'name' parameter—it does not explain what the name should be, its case sensitivity, formatting, or what happens if null.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add) and the resource (return track) with context (to the session). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_track and update_return_track, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_track, nor does it mention prerequisites or context needed for invocation.
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?
The description only states the core action without disclosing behavioral details like prerequisites, side effects on other tracks, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it is too sparse for a tool with two parameters and no usage context, resulting in underspecification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and two parameters, the description lacks information about the return value, the effect of arming/disarming, and any prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the two parameters ('track_index' and 'armed') or explain how they control the arm/disarm action. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool arms or disarms a track for recording, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_track' or 'delete_track' by the action 'arm/disarm'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 requiring the track to be stopped or handling conflicts with other recording states.
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 behavioral traits. It only states the creation action and the length parameter. It fails to mention whether an existing clip in the slot is overwritten, default behavior for name, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no extraneous information. The length parameter example is helpful. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has 4 parameters and is a creation operation—significant context like what happens if a clip already exists, required state (e.g., track must be loaded), or constraints on slot_index are missing. The description is incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Only the 'length' parameter is partially explained ('clip length in bars'). The critical parameters 'track_index' and 'slot_index' are not described, and 'name' is only mentioned as a property without any guidance. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new MIDI clip in a slot', which clearly conveys the verb and resource. It also provides an example for the length parameter. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_clip or delete_clip, but the purpose 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or situations where this tool is appropriate. Without such context, an AI agent may struggle to decide when to invoke create_clip over other clip-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 full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, whether the slot must contain a clip, or any side effects on automation or routing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, making it succinct and front-loaded. However, it is too terse given the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description explains basic functionality but misses critical context like orientation (session vs arrangement) and fails to leverage the output schema to describe return values. It is incomplete for its domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning. It only mentions 'clip' and 'slot', but does not explain how the parameters (track_index, slot_index) identify the target or any constraints on their values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (clip from a slot), but it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'delete_arrangement_clip', which deletes clips from the arrangement. The term 'slot' implies session view, but it's not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'delete_arrangement_clip' or other deletion tools. There is no mention of 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions equivalence to clicking a button, but fails to disclose effects like behavior when the clip is already playing or if the slot is empty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise but too minimal. Could provide more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness regarding behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty slot, running clip). Output schema exists but its explanation is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameters 'track_index' and 'slot_index' are not explained in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should add meaning but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it launches a clip slot and uses a specific verb 'fire'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stop_clip' and 'create_clip'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'stop_clip' or 'create_clip'. The context of use is implied but not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the pattern options and note duration but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as the 'replace_existing' default of true, the requirement for 'track_index' and 'slot_index', or any side effects like overwriting existing clip contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 lines) and front-loaded with a clear purpose. It uses a bullet-like list for parameter details, which is efficient. However, it omits many parameters entirely, which is not conciseness but under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers 3 parameters and does not explain the output or required parameters. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool for all use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful detail for only 3 of 12 parameters: pattern (lists options), note_duration (gives example values in beats), and octave_range (states range 1-3). The other 9 parameters, including required ones like track_index and slot_index, are completely undocumented. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and resource 'arpeggio pattern', and specifies the output action 'place it into a MIDI clip'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_and_place_bassline' by naming the specific pattern type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 the many sibling generation tools (e.g., generate_and_place_melody, generate_and_place_chords). It does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where alternative tools 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it removes a single breakpoint at a beat position but does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens if the point doesn't exist, undo behavior, impact on playback). Minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness, missing parameter context and behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters relate to the operation, what values to use, or what the result looks like. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning param names and types are the only clues. The description adds no meaning for any of the five parameters (track_index, slot_index, envelope_index, time, duration), leaving an agent to guess their roles. This is wholly inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action 'Remove', the resource 'automation breakpoint', and the scope 'single', with a location 'at a specific beat position'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'clear_automation_envelope' (removes all points) and 'add_automation_points' (adds points).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'clear_automation_envelope' or 'delete_automation_envelope'. The description only states what it does, not when or when not 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action, omitting details such as whether the change is immediate, persistent, or affects other states. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 6 words). While appropriate for a simple tool, it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded and efficient, but some context is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, confirm success, or note any side effects. More detail is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The one parameter 'enabled' is implicitly linked to the metronome state, but no additional meaning (e.g., format, defaults, edge cases) is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle Ableton's metronome on or off' clearly identifies the resource (metronome) and action (toggle/enable). However, 'toggle' is slightly imprecise because the parameter sets a state rather than switching it, but the intent is clear. There are no sibling tools for metronome, so differentiation is not needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 in what context (e.g., during playback, before recording). There are no 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives parameter hints for tempo and time_signature but does not state whether updates are destructive, require specific permissions, or trigger side effects like playback changes. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences and no redundant text. However, it could be better structured by listing all parameters or using bullet points. It earns its place but lacks completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no description of return values (despite an output schema existing), the description is incomplete. The agent lacks sufficient context about what properties can be updated, the necessity of scene_index, and the result of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only describes time_signature (with format hint) and tempo (with version caveat), leaving scene_index, name, and color completely unexplained. This partial coverage means the agent may misuse omitted parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'update' and resource 'scene' are clear, indicating modification of scene properties. However, the description only explicitly mentions tempo and time_signature, implying other properties like name and color are also updatable but not stated, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 update_clip or update_track. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys the basic generation and placement action, and partially explains complexity, but omits critical behaviors: whether it overwrites existing notes (despite the 'replace_existing' parameter defaulting to true), whether it creates a new clip or requires an existing one, and the side effects of placement. The description is inadequate for safe autonomous use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the primary purpose and a key parameter nuance. Every element earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The front-loaded structure quickly informs the agent of the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is substantially incomplete. It fails to explain many parameters (e.g., style, key, scale, octave, seed), does not specify whether the tool creates a clip or modifies an existing one, and does not reference the output schema. The description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to fill through inference or trial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 only adds meaning for one parameter ('complexity' range). The other nine parameters (track_index, slot_index, style, key, scale, octave, length_bars, replace_existing, seed) receive no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Generate a bassline') and the target ('place it into a MIDI clip'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling generation tools beyond the tool's name itself, so it's clear but not maximally distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance, only explaining the 'complexity' parameter's meaning. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_and_place_melody), nor does it offer any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent with little context for decision-making.
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, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or what happens if the scene does not exist. The vagueness 'Get details' offers minimal safety insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the core purpose. Every word is functional, though it could benefit from additional context without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits what 'details' are returned, despite an output schema existing. It lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation of 'scene_index' in the description, the parameter's meaning, format, and how to obtain its value are entirely unclear. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details for a specific scene' clearly states the action (get) and resource (scene details), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_scenes (list all) and create_scene (create new).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_scenes), nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only indicates the type of racks supported but omits critical details like whether chains include nested racks, the format of the output (e.g., names, indices), or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it very concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity; it could include parameter context or output hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which the description does not reference), the description fails to explain input parameters, output structure, or edge cases. For a tool with two required parameters and a likely important output, the description is too sparse to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what track_index and device_index represent. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess their roles and valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all chains') and identifies the specific resources ('Instrument Rack, Effect Rack, or Drum Rack'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chain_details or get_chain_devices by focusing on listing all chains rather than retrieving details or devices of a specific chain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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_chain_details or get_rack_info. The description does not mention 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only explains parameters. Does not disclose side effects (e.g., destructive nature, undo availability, or impact on existing notes) beyond implying mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details. Each sentence serves a clear function with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks essential context: no explanation for 'track_index' and 'slot_index', no mention of input validation (e.g., track must be MIDI), and no description of return value despite existing output schema. Insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description explains 'quantize_to' and 'amount' with example values, but omits explanation for required parameters 'track_index' and 'slot_index', which are critical for targeting the clip.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Quantize MIDI notes in a clip', identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_clip_quantization' by focusing on per-note quantization, though not explicitly differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'set_clip_quantization' or 'add_notes'. Does not indicate prerequisites or context for effective use.
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; the description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as what happens if the envelope does not exist, whether points are added to existing ones or overwrite, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, but the lack of additional context keeps it from being optimally concise; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 required parameters, no annotations, no behavioral details, and an output schema present but not described, the description is incomplete for effective tool use, especially regarding prerequisites, side effects, and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description only provides an example for the 'points' parameter but does not explain track_index, slot_index, envelope_index, leaving their roles ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add breakpoints') and the resource ('existing automation envelope'), with a concise example of input format, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_automation_point or create_automation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., create_automation for creating a new envelope, remove_automation_point for deleting points). The description implies usage only through 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?
No annotations; description does not disclose whether notes are appended or overwritten, limits, or error behavior. Only basic addition is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise single sentence with an example. No unnecessary words, but could be better structured with separate sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing crucial context like append vs replace behavior, constraints on note properties, and error handling; insufficient given the tool's complexity and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description only explains the 'notes' parameter format but ignores required 'track_index' and 'slot_index', failing to compensate for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it adds MIDI notes to a clip, distinguishing it from siblings like 'clear_notes' and 'get_notes'. Provides an example of the note object format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'clear_notes' or 'update_clip'. No mention of prerequisites or context for use.
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?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic function. It does not explain side effects such as overwriting existing clip content (despite a 'replace_existing' parameter) or whether the tool creates a new clip. With no annotations, 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but the structure is uneven: a clear one-liner followed by a bullet-like list of three parameters. The most important parameters (progression, voicing) are covered, but the list is incomplete and not front-loaded with the most crucial info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It covers the core purpose but fails to explain the majority of parameters and their interrelationships, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only three of twelve parameters (progression, voicing, bars_per_chord) are explained in the description. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it omits critical parameters like track_index, slot_index, key, scale, length_bars, and replace_existing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('generate a chord progression and place it into a MIDI clip') and explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning chord generation specifically, unlike arpeggio, bassline, or melody tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 over alternatives like 'generate_and_place_arpeggio' or 'generate_and_place_bassline'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.
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 indicates a read operation ('Get') and mentions included details. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence covering the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from detail, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the main output (group details and child indices). However, the input parameter is critically under-explained, and the overall completeness is just adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the 'group_index' parameter beyond its title. There is no indication of indexing (0-based or 1-based), valid ranges, or how to obtain the index. The description adds no value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details of a group track including child track indices. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('group track'). While it differentiates from siblings like 'get_group_children' (which focuses only on children), it does not explicitly distinguish, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., 'get_group_children', 'list_groups'). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is or isn't 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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the output content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core functionality without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It fails to explain parameter roles or usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of the two integer parameters ('track_index' and 'device_index'). Without any parameter guidance, an agent cannot correctly infer how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('parameters of a device') and specifies the returned data ('current value, range, and display string'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_device' or 'list_devices'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 not to use it, which is necessary given the large number of 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?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states no audio capture needed but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, modifies anything, or what the output format is (text, structured data?). The output schema exists but is not visible in context. Insufficient for an advice tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, second adds a constraint. No wasted words. However, could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool generating mixing suggestions, the description is under-specified. It doesn't describe the output type, how suggestions are presented, or what factors influence the suggestions. Output schema exists but not elaborated. Incomplete for a complex advisory tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'track_index' has no description in schema (0% coverage). Description adds no explanation of how index is used (e.g., zero-based vs one-based) or how to obtain it from list_tracks. Agent must infer meaning from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Give specific mixing suggestions for a track'. Lists relevant state aspects (devices, volume, pan, sends, type). Distinguishes from similar tools like suggest_compression_settings or analyze_track by not requiring audio capture. However, could be more specific about what constitutes a 'mixing suggestion'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context ('based on its current state', 'No audio capture needed') implying it's for quick analysis without recording. No explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when to use it over alternatives like suggest_compression_settings or analyze_mix.
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 fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the valid volume range, but omits details like idempotency, error handling for out-of-range values, or what happens if indices are invalid. Minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and constraint immediately. No extraneous or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with four required parameters and no annotations. It lacks explanation of index parameters, usage constraints, and behavioral guarantees, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has four parameters with no descriptions; the description only adds context for 'volume' (range 0.0–1.0). It does not explain 'track_index', 'device_index', or 'chain_index', leaving the agent with only the schema property names to infer meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the volume') and the target resource ('a rack chain'), with a specified valid range (0.0–1.0). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_chain_pan' and 'mute_chain', which handle different properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'set_chain_pan' or 'mute_chain'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool 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 provided, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not mention effects on playback, constraints on parameters, or whether start/length are ignored when disabled. Minimal beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Front-loaded with action and resource, then optional parameters. Highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (3 params, output schema exists). Description covers basic functionality but lacks details on parameter interactions (e.g., start/length only matter when enabled) or edge cases. Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds 'in bars' for start and length, but does not explain units explicitly, constraints, mutual dependencies, or behavior when enabled=false. Minimal value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool enables/disables loop and optionally sets start/length in bars. It uniquely identifies the action on a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_tempo or set_metronome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, or any context about prerequisites or scenarios. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action 'stop'. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it reset clip position?), requirements (e.g., clip must be playing), or what happens if the clip is already stopped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and behavioral context that would help an agent use it correctly, especially without annotation support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'track_index' and 'slot_index'. Terms like 'slot_index' are domain-specific and could benefit from clarification (e.g., zero-based indexing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a playing clip on a specific track' clearly states the verb 'stop' and the resource 'clip on a specific track'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop' (stops overall playback) and 'fire_clip' (starts clip), but does not explicitly differentiate from 'delete_clip' or others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. For example, it does not specify that this stops a specific clip while leaving other clips or the overall playback unaffected, nor does it mention prerequisites like the clip must be playing.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions removing notes but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or affects other clip data, leaving important behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the required indices and assumes knowledge of which clip to clear. The two parameters are unexplained, making the tool incomplete for an agent without prior domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 required parameters (track_index, slot_index) with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not explain what these indices represent or how to use them, providing no parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('all MIDI notes from a clip'), making the tool's 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 Guidelines3/5Does 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 clear_automation_envelope or add_notes. The usage is implied only by the tool name and description.
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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects). The 'get' prefix implies read-only but is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the purpose is clear and an output schema exists, the description omits guidance on the track_index parameter and usage context, making it barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, track_index, has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what it represents or how to use it, failing to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists automatable parameters in arrangement view for a track, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_parameters or list_clip_automation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_automation or list_parameters. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
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 mentions 'full details' and 'device list' without disclosing what other details are included, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description itself lacks 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from a note about parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the three required parameters or provide any usage context. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not explain what track_index, device_index, or chain_index represent, how to obtain their values, or any constraints. Agents would have no guidance on filling these required integers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves full details of a rack chain including its device list. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_chains' (which likely only lists chain indices) and 'get_chain_devices' (which might return only devices). The verb 'Get' and resource 'full details of a rack chain' are 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when full chain details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_chain_devices' or 'list_chains'. No when-not or context exclusions are provided. The agent is left to infer from sibling names.
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 correctly implies a read operation ('get overview'), which is expected. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, impact on state, or performance characteristics. It meets basic expectations but does not go beyond.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the key information it returns. No extraneous words; efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal given the tool's context. It does not explain what constitutes a 'rack device' in the Ableton environment or how the track_index and device_index relate to the session structure. With an output schema present but not detailed, the agent lacks enough context to correctly apply the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has two parameters (track_index, device_index) with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify their meaning or valid ranges. For a tool with two required parameters in a likely indexing context, this omission reduces usability; the description should explain what these indices refer to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves an overview of a rack device, specifying the returned info: chain count, macro count, rack type. It uses a specific verb and resource, but among sibling tools like get_chain_details, get_device, get_macros, there's no explicit differentiation; the description is clear enough for an agent to infer 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_device or get_chain_details. Missing context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent receives no help in decision-making.
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 primary effect (unfreeze, re-enable plugins) but omits any side effects, performance implications, or resource requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (12 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices essential parameter context. A slightly longer description with parameter detail would make it more useful without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the parameter and behavior. It only covers the purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the required 'track_index' parameter. The agent receives no guidance on how to specify which track to unfreeze.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unfreeze a frozen track') and its effect ('to allow editing again (re-enables plugin processing)'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'freeze_track'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for frozen tracks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. A mention of 'use after freezing' would improve clarity.
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 only describes parameters without mentioning side effects (e.g., adding a track to the session, renumbering, failure conditions) or return value, despite having an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. Parameter details are listed concisely, though formatting could be slightly improved for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameters but misses important context such as output schema information, error conditions, project state changes, and prerequisites. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains three of four parameters (track_type, insert_at, color) with valid values, but omits the 'name' parameter entirely. It adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage), but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new track' and lists the track types (audio, midi, return) and parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_return_track and update_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 create_return_track or update_track. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.
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 adds behavioral context by explaining that 'enabled=False bypasses the plugin', but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility. No annotations to share the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. Extremely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple toggle tool, but missing parameter descriptions for indices reduces completeness. Output schema presence (not shown) may help, but not accounted for in description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'enabled' parameter is explained; 'track_index' and 'device_index' are left to the schema, which has 0% description coverage. The description adds value for one parameter but fails for the other two.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable a device') and explains the bypassing behavior, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_device' or 'add_device'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. Does not specify when to enable vs disable or compare to other device-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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it stops other clips, affects playback state, or requires a valid scene index. For a state-changing tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary context, such as parameter information. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns. However, the description is minimal and does not provide enough context about the action's effect on the session, making it barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention the required 'scene_index' parameter, leaving its purpose and constraints completely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Launch' and clearly identifies the resource 'all clips in a scene row'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'fire_clip' (which launches a single clip) and 'create_scene' (which creates a new scene).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to trigger all clips in a scene simultaneously, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fire_clip' or 'play'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance 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?
No annotations are provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'List' (implying read-only) and mentions return fields 'start_time, length, name, and other properties.' This adds basic context but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Annotations would have helped, but given the simple nature, the description is moderately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by return details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (supplying return structure), the description omits the required 'track_index' parameter entirely, leaving the agent uninformed about how to specify the track. Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description should have at least mentioned the parameter's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions for the single parameter 'track_index'), and the description does not explain its meaning (e.g., 0-based, which track). The description adds no value over the bare schema, failing to compensate for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List all clips placed in the Arrangement View timeline for a track.' The verb 'List' and specific resource 'clips in Arrangement View' distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_clips' (likely Session clips) and 'get_clip' (single clip).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Alternatives like 'list_clips', 'get_clip', or 'place_clip_in_arrangement' are listed but not differentiated. No explicit when-not-to-use information.
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 disclosing behavior. It states the tool lists all automation envelopes for a clip, which implies it is a read operation, but does not mention if it returns details like parameter names or values, or note any side effects. While minimal, it is not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word adds value, and it front-loads the purpose. No redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with an output schema, but the description fails to mention what the returned data contains (e.g., a list of envelope objects). Combined with missing parameter explanations, it is incomplete for confident usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters (track_index and slot_index). The description does not explain what these indices refer to, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone. This is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'automation envelopes in a clip', with an explanation that each envelope controls one device parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_arrangement_automation' by specifying 'in a clip'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'get_arrangement_automation' or 'clear_automation_envelope'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation and range, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing pan, interaction with automation) or if it's a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. The value range in parentheses is efficient. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool. Missing explanations for index parameters and usage guidance reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains the 'pan' parameter's range. The other three parameters (track_index, device_index, chain_index) lack any explanation of what they refer to, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set the pan' and the resource 'rack chain', with explicit value range (-1.0=left, 0.0=center, 1.0=right). It distinguishes from sibling set_chain_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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 traits, but it only lists the updatable properties. It omits side effects, mutability implications, permission requirements, or any description of the return value (despite an output schema existing).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the key action and target properties, containing no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. It lacks details about parameter behavior (e.g., setting to null) and fails to mention the output schema or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal meaning beyond listing the parameter names (name, volume, pan, mute). It does not explain valid ranges, units, or the nature of 'return_index' (the only required param).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (return track) and lists the specific properties that can be updated (name, volume, pan, or mute state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_return_track or delete_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., return track must exist) or conditions. The description merely states what it does without context for 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, the description carries full burden but only explains the basic function. Missing disclosures on whether the operation is reversible, whether the clip must already be warped, and what happens if markers exist at the same sample position.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences plus parameter notes, no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping parameter descriptions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 required parameters and no annotation support, the description lacks context on workflow prerequisites (e.g., clip must be in a slot), whether clip must be warped, and what the output schema returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 explains 'beat_time' and 'sample_time' but leaves 'track_index' and 'slot_index' undocumented, failing to specify how they identify the target clip.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb ('Add'), the resource ('warp marker to an audio clip'), and the purpose ('lock a sample position to a beat position'). It differentiates from siblings like 'get_warp_markers' (read) and 'quantize_clip' (different operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implicitly suggests usage when sample timing adjustment is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (creates tracks, fills with generated content) and mentions 'from scratch,' but lacks details on prerequisites, effect on existing tracks, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences efficiently convey core purpose and one parameter. Could be more structured but is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description is minimal for a complex 5-parameter tool. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how style/key/tempo affect generation) or whether it overwrites existing content, leaving significant gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning only to 'sections' (list, defaults). Other parameters (style, key, tempo, bars_per_section) are not described beyond their defaults and titles, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it builds a complete multi-track arrangement from scratch, creating tracks for melody, chords, bass, and drums, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_and_place_melody or generate_and_place_bassline that focus on single parts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage for generating a full song structure, calling it 'the most powerful generation command,' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, e.g., for single part generation.
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 discloses one behavioral trait: 'Cannot be undone via API' (irreversibility). However, it does not mention other side effects like impact on automation, routing, or dependent devices. Minimal but acceptable transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant words. Could be slightly more informative (e.g., specify index base) but remains concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool (delete) with no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), effects on playback, or return value information. The output schema exists but is not leveraged. Incomplete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It fails to explain what track_index and device_index represent (e.g., integer indices starting from 0 or 1). The output schema exists but is not referenced. Description does not compensate for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a device from a track's device chain,' specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'device from a track's device chain'. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like delete_track or delete_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., delete_track, add_device). The only contextual hint is 'Cannot be undone via API,' which warns about irreversibility but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 burden for behavioral transparency. It only mentions 'detailed info' without specifying what fields are returned (e.g., volume, pan, devices) or confirming it is read-only. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action, though it could be expanded with more details without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one required parameter, but the description lacks details about the return value (despite an output schema existing) and how it differs from related get tools. It feels incomplete for an agent to know exactly what information to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'by index' to clarify the parameter's role, but does not specify indexing (e.g., 0-based vs 1-based) or valid values. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more, but it remains minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed info about a specific track', and the method 'by index'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tracks (which lists tracks) or get_mixer (which gets mixer info), as it specifies both the track and the detail level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when detailed info about one track is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tracks or get_track_routing. No exclusions or complementary tool suggestions are 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 burden. It states it retrieves routing info but does not explicitly declare it as a safe read operation or mention side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, efficiently listing key items. Could benefit from slight restructuring but is concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the parameter's meaning or differentiate from get_routing_options, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain the track_index parameter (e.g., 0-based, required). The agent must infer from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get input/output routing for a track' with specific fields (audio source, monitoring mode, output destination, options), distinguishing it from siblings like get_track or get_routing_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_routing_options or set_track_input. The description does not mention 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 provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: four lines, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. Excellent structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to explain core parameters like track_index and device_index. No prerequisites or context about racks. Incomplete for a tool with four required params.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'macro' (index/name) and 'value' (range), but misses 'track_index' and 'device_index' entirely. Partial compensation, not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Set a macro knob value on a rack' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_macros' but does not explicitly differentiate from similar parameter-setting tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides parameter usage for macro and value (index/name examples, value range) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_parameter_by_name'. Implied context is present but no exclusions or explicit when/when-not.
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 discloses volume and pan ranges, which is helpful, but does not mention other behavioral traits like side effects, persistence, or required permissions. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more complete without adding much length, e.g., mentioning that other properties like mute, solo, arm, and color can also be updated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It only covers volume and pan, leaving most parameters without any explanation. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for volume and pan (ranges) but ignores the other six parameters (name, mute, solo, arm, color). Only 25% of parameters gain additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update track properties' clearly states the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_track, delete_track, and get_track. It also provides specific details about volume and pan ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without 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?
With no annotations, the description only briefly mentions adding a device but fails to disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or constraints like permission needs or undo capabilities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words, directly conveying the tool's core action and use case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters: 'return_index' (e.g., zero-based? range?) and 'device_name' (e.g., exact string? allowed devices?), leaving the agent without essential usage details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a plugin/device to a return track' and explains the purpose of return tracks, distinguishing it from similar tools like add_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use return tracks (for shared effects), implying this tool is for those cases, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It correctly warns of permanent deletion, which is critical. However, it omits side effects (e.g., effect on clips, devices, automation) and does not mention any prerequisites 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second adds a critical warning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return value. It also lacks information on error cases (e.g., invalid index) or the behavior when deleting a track that is currently playing or has dependencies. For a simple deletion tool, more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is track_index, an integer. Description says 'by index,' which merely repeats the parameter name. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning (e.g., valid range, how to obtain index), but it does not, providing minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Permanently delete a track by index,' clearly identifying the action (delete), resource (track), and identifier (index). It distinguishes from siblings like duplicate_track, create_track, and update_track, which are not deletion operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions irreversibility ('cannot be undone via API') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_track or flatten_track. It does not suggest when not to use it or what to consider before deletion.
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 burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and mentions the output includes note assignments. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, performance characteristics, or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but lacks structural elements like bullet points or separate sections that could improve readability for complex tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality (listing populated pads with note assignments) and an output schema exists (not shown). However, it omits context like how to specify the track/device, pagination, or return format details. Adequate for a simple list tool but incomplete for full automation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 does not explain 'track_index' or 'device_index' beyond their names, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and valid ranges. Minimal value added over the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'populated drum pads in a Drum Rack with their note assignments.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_drum_pad' (single pad) and 'mute_drum_pad' (muting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'get_drum_pad' or 'list_chains.' It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context 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 disclose behavior. It mentions searching the browser but fails to specify side effects (e.g., overwriting current settings), error cases (e.g., preset not found), or requirements (e.g., device must support presets).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a critical usage guideline. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks explanation of input parameters beyond 'preset_name', and does not cover behavioral details like error handling or prerequisites. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required params), the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters. It only explains 'preset_name' (must match exactly), but leaves 'track_index' and 'device_index' unexplained, assuming the agent knows they refer to Ableton's track and device indices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Load a preset' and the resource 'onto an existing device', and adds context by mentioning 'searching Ableton's browser'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'add_device' because it loads a preset rather than adding a device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one important guideline: 'preset_name must match exactly as shown in Ableton's browser.' However, it does not specify when or why one should use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when to avoid it.
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 action (mute/unmute), which is straightforward. However, it does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or additional behavioral traits beyond the toggle action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or information. Highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple toggle, the description omits important context about what 'track_index' and 'device_index' refer to (track with drum rack, device index). Without this, the agent may misinterpret how to target the correct drum pad. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 adds meaning for the 'note' parameter by specifying 'by MIDI note number', but does not clarify the roles of 'track_index' or 'device_index'. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Mute or unmute') and resource ('a specific drum pad'), and identifies the key identifier ('by MIDI note number'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mute_chain and get_drum_pad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 mute_chain or when not to use it. The description implies usage for muting/unmuting drum pads but lacks explicit 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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention whether the change affects existing clips, is reversible, or requires specific privileges.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus an example—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on edge cases, error handling, or effects on the project. It could mention that the time signature change applies globally to the project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description's example adds meaning by showing typical values (4/4), but does not specify valid ranges or constraints beyond integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the time signature, with a concrete example (numerator=4, denominator=4 for 4/4). This is sufficient to differentiate from sibling tools like set_tempo or set_metronome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The example provides context but no explicit usage directions.
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 the full burden. It lacks disclosure of whether the operation is destructive, what happens to automation or routing, or if it can be undone. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, though it could be structured with a small heading for quicker scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema but no description of return values, and the tool's potential impact on the arrangement, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding effects and return data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but provides no details about the 'group_index' parameter (e.g., how to obtain it, valid range, or that it identifies the group track).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'dissolve' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'group track' and the result 'returning its children to the top level'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fold_group' or 'flatten_track'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage (when you want to ungroup a group track) but does not provide explicit when to use vs alternatives, nor any 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 provided. The description implies mutation but does not disclose behavioral details like partial updates, permissions, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and subject, no extraneous words. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. Lacks details on parameter formats and behavioral context; output schema exists but not described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists updatable fields (name, volume, pan, mute, solo) adding some meaning beyond the schema, but lacks constraints (e.g., volume range) or explanations for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a group track, listing specific properties (name, volume, pan, mute, solo). It distinguishes from siblings like create_group or get_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., update_track, update_clip). No context on 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the parameter format and gives an example, but it does not specify whether the automation overwrites existing points, whether it creates a new envelope, or any side effects like destructive behavior. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by parameter formats and a clear example. No redundant information; every part serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 required parameters, including nested points array), the description lacks details on track_index and slot_index (e.g., index range, zero-based?). It does not cover the output schema or error conditions. The example helps but neglects key parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for 'param' and 'points' beyond the schema (e.g., param values, point structure). However, it completely omits explanation for 'track_index' and 'slot_index', which are required parameters with no schema descriptions. Coverage is only 50%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it automates a mixer parameter (volume, pan, send) in a clip, using a specific format. It distinguishes from sibling automation tools by specifying 'mixer' and 'in a clip', setting it apart from general automation tools like create_automation or add_automation_points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an example and explains param and points, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_automation_points or clear_automation_envelope, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Create a new scene' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or whether operation is reversible. The insert_at hint is a parameter detail, not 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two sentences and no filler. The key information is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a create operation, the description should provide more context such as return value behavior or constraints. It is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for the 'insert_at' parameter by specifying its role and default value. The 'name' parameter remains undocumented, but the description partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'scene', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_scene' and 'update_scene'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'update_scene' or 'fire_scene'. Parameter hint for insert_at is provided but no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
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. It discloses that the action removes clips and devices permanently and bakes audio, indicating destructive and irreversible behavior. However, it does not mention any permissions, confirmations, or side effects beyond what is stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary information without any extraneous words. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (context), so return values are not needed in the description. The description covers the primary effect but does not mention error conditions (e.g., track not frozen) or confirm the outcome. Adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (track_index). The description does not mention the parameter or explain its role, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the target track. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'flatten' and the resource 'frozen track', and explains the action: replaces content with frozen audio, removes clips and devices, and bakes audio permanently. This distinguishes it from siblings like freeze_track and unfreeze_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool should only be used on frozen tracks ('Flatten a frozen track'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions beyond the track being frozen.
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 transparency. It only says 'Get details' without clarifying that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or what exactly the returned details contain (though an output schema exists, the description itself adds no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with an embedded example, containing no filler words. Every element serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context for 'track_index' and 'device_index' (e.g., how they relate to identifying a drum rack), and does not mention the output structure. Users may need to infer too much from the parameter names alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for the 'note' parameter by explaining it's a MIDI note number with examples, but it fails to explain 'track_index' and 'device_index', leaving their purpose to inference. This partial but helpful explanation earns a mid-range score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns details of a drum pad using a MIDI note number, with illustrative examples (36=kick). It distinctly specifies the action (Get), the resource (drum pad), and the key identifier (note number), differentiating it from siblings like list_drum_pads or mute_drum_pad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when details of a specific drum pad are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_drum_pads for overview), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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 states the return data (pitch, start time, duration, velocity) but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, mention prerequisites (e.g., MIDI clip required), or describe error conditions. The description is adequate but minimal for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key return values. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so the description's mention of return fields is helpful but not essential. However, the lack of parameter explanation and missing behavioral context (e.g., handling of non-MIDI clips) leaves the description moderately incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain what track_index and slot_index refer to. These parameters are essential for identifying the target clip, and the description provides no additional meaning beyond the bare schema names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all MIDI notes from a MIDI clip, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_notes (which adds), clear_notes (clears), and get_clip (which retrieves broader clip data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an agent needs to extract MIDI note data from a clip. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for audio clips) or alternatives such as get_clip for general clip info.
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. The description indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., no warp markers), or authorization requirements. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and adding a clarifying detail. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 an output schema, but the description does not explain how to determine the indices or any prerequisites. While the output schema exists, the description lacks guidance for an agent unfamiliar with the domain, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter titles provide no context beyond names. The description does not explain what 'track_index' and 'slot_index' represent, nor how to obtain them. The agent is left to infer the semantics from the tool name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all warp markers') and the resource ('in an audio clip'), with additional detail about what it returns ('beat-to-sample-time mappings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_warp_marker' which adds markers instead of retrieving them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is specific enough to imply when to use it (to retrieve warp markers), but no explicit guidance is given on prerequisites (e.g., the clip must exist and contain warp markers) or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or context relative to siblings.
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 basic action (jump playback) but omits details like whether playback starts, what happens if the locator doesn't exist, or if it modifies state beyond cursor position.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no superfluous words. The verb is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (handling return), the description misses context on error handling, prerequisites, and whether the tool starts playback. It is minimally complete but sufficient for a simple action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter beyond referring to it as 'named locator/marker'. Lacks format, case sensitivity, or relationship to 'add_locator'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Jump playback position') and the target ('named locator/marker'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_locator' and 'list_locators'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a locator already exists, but no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or fallback behavior discussed.
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 states 'List all clip slots' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 annotations, output schema present), the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It does not explain what the output contains (though output schema covers that), nor does it mention prerequisites like track existence. Acceptable for a basic list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('track_index') with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning and any constraints (e.g., zero-indexed, valid range) solely from the parameter name. This is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all clip slots for a track, showing which slots have clips.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('clip slots for a track'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_clip', 'delete_clip', and 'get_clip' by focusing on enumeration of slots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to see which slots have clips), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_arrangement_clips' or 'get_clip'. No exclusions or conditions 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 provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it lists devices with attributes; no disclosure of error behavior, side effects, or requirements (e.g., track must exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 14-word sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'List'. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with output schema, description is mostly adequate. Lacks error condition details (e.g., invalid track_index), but overall covers essential purpose and parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds context that track_index refers to a track, but does not clarify index base (0-based?) or other constraints. Adds partial meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly specifies verb 'List', resource 'all devices (plugins) on a track', and output fields (name, type, parameter count). Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_device' and 'list_drum_pads'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'get_device' or 'list_parameters'. Does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.
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 description must carry full burden; it only states the action and mapping, without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or scope (e.g., global vs. per-track).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and to the point, listing values in a readable format; though it could be structured as a table or with clearer formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present (though not shown), explanation of return values is not needed; however, the description lacks any contextual details like prerequisites or scope, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides a complete mapping of integer values to quantization amounts, adding essential meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Set' and resource 'MIDI recording input quantization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_clip_quantization and quantize_clip that target clip quantization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 or any context-specific usage advice; the description only provides a value mapping.
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 mentions case-insensitive matching but does not disclose what happens if the parameter name is not found, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: a clear declaration of purpose and a concrete example. No fluff, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and a moderate complexity (4 required parameters). The description lacks information about return values, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), and the output schema is not referenced. The description is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'param_name' as case-insensitive and provides an example, but does not elaborate on 'track_index' or 'device_index' beyond their names. The example provides limited compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a device parameter value') and resource ('by its name'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_parameter_by_index' which sets by index. The example reinforces usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'set_parameter_by_index'. The description implies case-insensitive name matching but doesn't advise on trade-offs or contexts.
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 discloses the main action and return values, which is helpful since no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention potential side effects, such as overwriting existing files, or prerequisites (e.g., an ongoing capture). The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and succinctly state return values. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core action and return values. However, it omits details about parameters and potential errors, leaving some gaps. It is minimally complete but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the parameters (output_path, sample_rate). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning or usage hints, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify output location or sample rate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop audio capture') and the outcome ('save to WAV file'), and it lists the return values (RMS level, peak amplitude, duration). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like start_audio_capture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 it should be used after start_audio_capture or that it requires an active capture session. The agent is left to infer usage context.
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 burden. It states it lists tracks, implying a read-only operation. No destructive or side effects are mentioned, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose any limitations, such as whether nested groups are included or if there is a maximum number of children returned. The description is basic but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mention that it returns track details) without significant bloat, so it does not achieve a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it does not address nesting depth (direct vs. recursive children) or special cases like empty groups. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% – the schema provides no description for the 'group_index' parameter. The tool description does not explain what 'group_index' means, how to obtain it, or what valid values are. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all tracks that belong to a group track' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (tracks belonging to a group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_group' (which likely returns group properties) and 'list_tracks' (which returns all tracks). The verb-resource pair 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs children of a specific group, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. For example, it does not mention that to list all tracks one should use 'list_tracks' instead. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation with no side effects, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid indices) or whether the device must be a rack. Adequate for a simple getter but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is direct and to the point. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose and parameter context adequately, though it could mention that macros are indexed 1-8. Overall, sufficient for a focused tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'rack device' for context but does not explain track_index or device_index semantics beyond their titles. Leaves ambiguity about valid ranges or required values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all macro knob values for a rack device, specifying the range Macro 1–8. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'macro knob values', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device or set_macro.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. Sibling tools include set_macro and get_rack_info, but the description does not provide context for selection 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 provided; description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or behavior if already playing or nothing is loaded.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words, perfectly sized for a simple action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple start action, but missing context on preconditions (e.g., must have a loaded project) and behavior if already playing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but not needed; baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start playback') and the resource ('from the current position'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'continue_playback'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'continue_playback'), nor any conditions or limitations.
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 behavioral information. It only mentions the BPM range but does not disclose side effects, mutability, or what happens during playback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 8 words, no filler. Highly concise and front-loaded with essential action and constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core function but lacks information on return values (despite having an output schema) and does not mention any related tools or context for integration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by specifying the unit (BPM) and valid range (60–200), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('project tempo') with unit and range (BPM 60–200), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_time_signature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., set_time_signature) or any prerequisites/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 side effects and outcomes. It only states the start of capture, omitting what happens to the captured audio, how to stop, or potential impacts. Lacks 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no waste: purpose, setup, and device parameter. Could be more structured but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description could be less detailed on return values, but it lacks explanation of the capture lifecycle (duration, output location, etc.). Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description only adds meaning for 'device_name', saying it should come from get_audio_devices(). Parameters 'sample_rate' and 'channels' are completely undescribed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence clearly states the verb 'Start capturing' and the resource 'audio from a virtual audio device'. It is distinct from the sibling 'stop_audio_capture'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions required setup (VB-Cable/BlackHole) and how to specify the device via get_audio_devices(). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
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 provided, and description only says 'add' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether device is appended or inserted, failure modes, or track index bounds). Lacks operational details expected 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, efficient examples, and prerequisite. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers device types and prerequisite, but misses details like track index interpretation, return value (though output schema exists), and behavior (e.g., position in chain). Adequate but not thorough for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description provides examples for 'device_name' but does not explain 'track_index' semantics (e.g., zero-indexed, valid range). Insufficient guidance for correct parameter specification beyond naming.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action ('Add a device or plugin to a track') and scope ('by searching Ableton's browser'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'add_device_to_return' and 'delete_device' by specifying regular tracks and device types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context: works for Ableton native and VST plugins, with examples. Includes prerequisite ('Plugin must be installed and scanned'). Does not explicitly exclude cases or contrast with alternatives, but context is sufficient for typical use.
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 burden. It indicates a read-only operation with 'Get', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or specify output format or permissions. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core behavior and provides an alternative. However, the parameter is not explained, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the track_index parameter (e.g., zero-indexed, range). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets audio analysis info for a track, listing volume, pan, and device chain state. It distinguishes from waveform analysis by referencing start_audio_capture/stop_audio_capture, but does not differentiate from other analysis tools like analyze_mix or analyze_wav_file_tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides an alternative for full waveform analysis (start_audio_capture + stop_audio_capture), giving a clear when-not context. However, it does not address when to use this tool over other analysis tools.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core operation (duplicate) and insertion position, but does not mention any side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. This is adequate for a straightforward mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sets the action, the second adds a specific detail. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 an output schema, the description covers the core function but lacks parameter explanation and broader usage context. It is minimally complete but could be improved by explaining the parameter and providing a example or note on track indexing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'track_index' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameter at all. The field name implies the track to duplicate but does not clarify the meaning of the integer index or any constraints. Description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Duplicate a track' using a specific verb and resource, and adds the precise behavior that the copy is inserted directly after the original, distinguishing it from any other operation in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to duplicate a track) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given no other duplicate tool exists, it is adequate but lacks context for prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
Discloses GM drum mapping and pattern/variation behavior. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Does not mention that replace_existing parameter will overwrite notes or any side effects. No annotation contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short, focused description with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: verb+resource, GM mapping, pattern options, variation explanation. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description only covers pattern and variation. Missing explanations for track_index, slot_index, style, length_bars, replace_existing, seed. Output schema exists but does not reduce need for parameter clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds meaning for 'pattern' (lists options) and 'variation' (range 0-1) which the schema lacks. However, 0% schema coverage means other parameters (track_index, slot_index, style, length_bars, replace_existing, seed) are not explained in description or schema. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Generate a drum pattern and place it into a MIDI clip' with specific verb (generate and place), resource (drums), and context (MIDI clip). Distinguishes from sibling generation tools by focusing on drums and mentioning GM drum mapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for drum pattern generation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like generate_and_place_arpeggio or other pattern generators. Mentions a prerequisite (set up Drum Rack) but lacks comparison or exclusionary 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 must carry full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a clip if the slot is empty and that replace_existing controls overwriting. However, it omits details like required permissions, error cases (e.g., invalid track/slot), and whether the operation is reversible. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a brief purpose sentence followed by a list of parameter definitions. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrases like 'Generate a melody and place it' (redundant with title). Still, it earns its sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the parameters well. It mentions clip creation and replace behavior. However, it lacks context about track existence requirements, error scenarios, and how tempo/time signature affect generation. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter gets clear explanations with examples (style list, scale options, octave range, density range, etc.). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates a melody and places it into an Ableton MIDI clip, including creating the clip if empty. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like generate_and_place_arpeggio or generate_and_place_bassline, leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. The description only explains what it does, not contexts where it is appropriate or inappropriate. No mention of prerequisites or alternative 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 must bear the full burden. It only states 'Set', implying mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or behavior beyond the basic operation. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and wastes no 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and prerequisite, but given the 4 required parameters and the fact that an output schema exists (but is not referenced), it lacks completeness on what the tool returns or additional behavioral context. Adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no explanation for the four parameters. The parameter names (track_index, device_index, param_index, value) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not add any additional meaning, such as formats, ranges, or dependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a device parameter value') and the method ('by its index'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_parameter_by_name' which uses a name instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_parameters first to find the right index and valid range.' This helps the agent prepare, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when a name is known).
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 exist, so description bears the burden. It mentions the output (metrics and mixing suggestions) but does not state side effects (e.g., read-only nature, no modifications). Could be more transparent about being non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Front-loads purpose and lists key metrics, then explains file_path parameter. Every word is earned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema existence (not shown), description need not detail return values but mentions 'returns mixing suggestions' which helps. Missing explanation of track_name parameter leaves a gap, but overall sufficient for a simple analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains file_path as 'absolute path to a WAV file' with context, but does not describe track_name (default 'Audio'). Only one of two parameters is clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes a WAV file for specific metrics (RMS, peak, LUFS, etc.) and returns mixing suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_track' (likely analyzes in-session tracks) and 'analyze_mix' (overall mix analysis).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides some context (file_path must be a WAV file from Ableton or exported), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like 'analyze_track' or 'mastering_analysis'. No exclusions or when-not 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by noting that 'The group bus gets its own volume/pan/devices,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, other important side effects (e.g., on individual tracks, routing) are not mentioned, so transparency is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core operation but lacks details on usage context, parameter semantics for 'name,' and any mention of related operations like 'ungroup' or 'fold_group.' This leaves some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'track_indices' with clear semantics: 'list of adjacent track indices to group (must be contiguous).' However, the optional 'name' parameter is not explained at all, missing an opportunity to clarify its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Group a set of contiguous tracks into a Group Track.' The verb 'group' and resource 'contiguous tracks' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'fold_group' or 'ungroup'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does 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 it does mention the constraint that tracks must be contiguous, which provides implicit guidance. However, it lacks explicit recommendations or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 burden. It only says 'Delete' without any details on side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or state requirements. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second provides actionable guidance. No extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and one parameter, but lacks details on return behavior (output schema not shown), error conditions, and prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive for a delete action with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0% and 2 parameters, the description adds value by explaining how to obtain the clip_index. However, it does not explain the track_index parameter beyond its existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Delete a clip from the Arrangement View timeline' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (clip), and distinguishes it from sibling 'delete_clip' by specifying the view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a prerequisite workflow hint: 'Use list_arrangement_clips to find the clip_index.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state read-only nature, safety, or any side effects. Only mentions output content briefly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No redundant or vague wording. Efficiently conveys purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete regarding the exact fields returned. It does not clarify if the operation is safe or has any prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 as the description does not need to explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get comprehensive session info' with specific examples like track counts, tempo, quantization settings. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual elements (e.g., get_clip, get_device).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The usage is implied as needing high-level session overview, but no exclusions or comparisons to other getter 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the mode behaviors but omits potential side effects, requirements (e.g., track existence), default behavior, or interaction with other settings like arming. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence efficiently lists mode options. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (unseen) and simple parameters, the description covers the core functionality but lacks context on default behavior, error conditions, and preconditions. It is adequate but not fully complete for a developer unfamiliar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the three mode values ('in', 'auto', 'off') in plain language. However, it does not specify the format or range of track_index (e.g., 0-based or 1-based).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'input monitoring mode for a track'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_input (which handles routing) and arm_track (which arms for recording).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the three mode values and their meanings, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_input or arm_track. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 must carry the burden. It discloses that gain applies only to audio clips, but does not mention other behaviors like validation of loop points, error handling, or whether unspecified properties remain unchanged.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds context about clip type, and the third provides parameter details. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values not needed), the description covers some key parameter constraints but omits explanations for other parameters and potential side effects. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for loop_start/loop_end (in beats) and gain (0.0–1.0, audio only), but does not explain other parameters like name, loop_enabled, warping, or the required track_index and slot_index.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'clip properties', and distinguishes from create/delete tools. It also specifies that it works for both MIDI and audio clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating clip properties but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like create_clip or delete_clip. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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 reveals basic behavior: adding a locator at a given beat or current position. However, it omits details on overlapping names, limits, or destructiveness. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main action and default behavior. It could mention how the name is used or any caveats, but overall it is sufficiently complete for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains the name is required and time defaults to current position, but does not specify the format or constraints for time (e.g., beat units) or the role of name (label?). Adds some meaning but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add), the resource (arrangement locator/marker), and the location (specific beat position or current playback). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_warp_marker and list_locators by specifying 'arrangement' and 'locator/marker'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding markers in the arrangement but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.
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 discloses that the tool hides or shows child tracks, but does not mention idempotency, permissions, or effects on existing fold state. The behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. It is concise with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks usage context such as how to obtain the group_index or what happens on invalid input. It is adequate for a simple toggle but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameters (group_index, folded) or their semantics. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Fold or unfold a group track' with an explanatory parenthetical 'hide/show child tracks in the session view'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like update_group or ungroup by specifying the visibility toggle action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for toggling group track visibility, which differentiates it from query tools (get_group) or modification tools (update_group). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any usage exclusions.
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 provided, so description bears full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like scope (session clip only?), required permissions, or side effects. The mention of loop settings and warp mode adds some context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Description covers essential purpose and specific details. However, it could clarify that the clip is from a session slot (implied by parameters) vs arrangement, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but parameter names (track_index, slot_index) are self-explanatory from titles. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, such as explaining that these identify a clip in a track's slot. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed info about a clip, specifically loop settings and warp mode. Verb 'get' and resource 'clip' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_clips (lists clips without details) or delete_clip (deletes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage context (inspecting clip details) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., use list_clips first to find indices, or use get_clip before modifying). No when-not or alternative 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 must carry the full burden. It states only that it retrieves send levels, with no mention of side effects, permissions, error conditions, or safety (though it's likely read-only). This minimal disclosure leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits prerequisites like track existence or valid index, and does not indicate whether send values are floats or booleans. A minor gap but still functional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter track_index has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds value by linking it to 'for a track' and clarifying the result structure ('one send per return track'), compensating well for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves all send levels for a track, specifying 'one send per return track.' This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_send which writes, and get_routing_options which deals with routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies the tool is for reading send levels but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., set_send) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage boundaries.
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 convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., a session must be open), side effects, or permissions. The description lacks sufficient transparency beyond the obvious read nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence of 10 words that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key action and output, wasting no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the key information needed. It lists the main attributes returned. However, it could slightly benefit from noting that it returns the full current session state, but it is mostly complete for a read-only parameterless tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema documentation coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for param info. It adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the current Ableton session state and lists specific attributes (tempo, time signature, playback status, loop settings). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current Ableton session state'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_song_info or get_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used when you need global session parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_song_info or get_track. No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria 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 provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or coverage of hidden tracks. Minimal behavioral context beyond the function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Clearly states action, scope, and output in an efficient manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is listed and includes properties. Could mention if there is any limit or ordering, but not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the scope and output. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description fulfills that without needing parameter-specific detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'tracks', specifying types (audio, MIDI, return) and output (properties). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track (single track) and list_return_tracks (only returns).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use when you need all tracks, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Siblings like get_track or list_return_tracks exist but are not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool overwrites an existing clip at the given position, or any side effects like data destruction. The description assumes the user knows the behavior, which 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences, covering purpose, requirements, parameter explanations, and a follow-up hint. It could be more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description partially covers the purpose and some parameters but lacks explanation for track_index and behavioral aspects like overwriting. The output schema is not mentioned, but since it exists, the description need not detail return values. Overall, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains position_beats and length_beats with examples, and mentions name as optional. However, it fails to describe track_index, which is a required parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a notable gap, but the explanation for the other parameters adds value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'MIDI clip' with a specific location 'in the Arrangement View at a specific timeline position'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_clip by specifying the view and position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use the tool by specifying requirements (Ableton Live 10.1+, MIDI track) and suggests a follow-up action (use add_notes). However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or 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 of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'save' without detailing effects like overwriting, confirmation prompts, or the need for an unsaved project. This lack of detail limits an agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (though not shown) and the tool is straightforward, the description is mostly complete. However, it could optionally mention whether the save overwrites without confirmation or if it returns a success status, but these are not strictly required for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and the resource ('current Ableton project'). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other sibling tool is named 'save_project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
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 explains the integer-to-quantization mapping, which is the key behavioral aspect. However, it does not disclose whether the change is global and affects all clips, or if there are any side effects. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden but is only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear mapping list. No superfluous words, well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meaning. It could explicitly state that the setting is global, but overall it is complete enough for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains the parameter. It maps each integer value (0-8) to its quantization length (None, 8 bars, etc.), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Set global clip launch quantization' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_midi_quantization' by specifying 'clip launch'. The mapping of values is clearly provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'quantize_clip' or other quantization tools. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
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 discloses the allowed value range and boosting behavior, but does not mention side effects (e.g., immediate effect, persistence, clipping). This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the range details are immediately useful. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning adequately. It could add a note about real-time application or clipping, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 explains the 'value' parameter's range (0.0 to 1.0 for attenuation/unity, above 1.0 for up to +6dB boost), adding essential meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Set master volume', using a specific verb and resource. It also provides the range (0.0 to 1.0) and behavior above 1.0, which distinguishes it from sibling volume tools like set_crossfader or set_chain_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and range, leaving the agent to infer its usage context.
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 indicates a mutation ('Set'), but lacks details on side effects, allowed values for output_name, or behavior on invalid inputs. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a helpful reference. Front-loaded structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple setter nature and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits parameter details and error conditions, which are not covered by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only implies output_name comes from get_routing_options. It does not describe track_index or channel, so the agent lacks guidance on parameter meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets audio output routing for a track, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like set_track_input by specifying 'output' and references get_routing_options, providing context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises the agent to use get_routing_options to find valid output names, guiding correct usage. However, it does not mention prerequisites like track existence or when this tool is inappropriate.
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 only states the purpose and role values but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or any required permissions. The output schema is present but the description does not address behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences clearly stating the purpose and listing role options. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (via context signals), the description is largely complete for a simple suggestion tool. It defines the input role values and purpose. It could briefly hint at what the output contains, but the schema handles that. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adds value for the 'role' parameter by listing possible values, but provides no detail for 'track_index'. This is partially helpful but leaves a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides compressor settings suggestions for a track based on its role. It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('compressor settings'), and the role parameter distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_eq_settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists possible role values ('kick', 'snare', 'bass', 'vocal', 'bus', 'glue', 'limiting', 'auto'), implying when to use the tool (e.g., for specific track types). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
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?
Describes the toggling behavior but doesn't disclose side effects, prerequisites, or whether it's a read-only operation. No annotations to supplement. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no parameters and output schema present. Description covers core behavior, but lacks usage context. Nearly complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters required. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Description adds no param info, but with 0 params, baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Toggle session record mode on/off' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'arm_track' which arms individual tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., arm_track, stop). No context on prerequisites or ideal scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: it removes all breakpoints but keeps the envelope. It is honest about the destructive nature on data. However, it does not mention other aspects like whether the operation is undoable or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without any wasted words. It efficiently states the action and its effect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (clear operation with three integer params and an existing output schema), the description covers the core behavior. However, it could be improved by mentioning when to use it over sibling tools and possibly describing the return value or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (track_index, slot_index, envelope_index). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify their roles or provide any guidance on how to specify them, which is needed when the schema lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'clear', the resource 'automation envelope', and specifies that breakpoints are removed while the envelope is kept. This distinguishes it from sibling like 'delete_automation_envelope' which would remove the entire envelope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you want to reset an automation envelope to empty but keep the envelope structure. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus other related tools like 'remove_automation_point' or 'delete_automation_envelope', leaving the agent to infer 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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the values retrieved and does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether it's read-only. This omission requires the agent to infer behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose with no extra words. Every word is necessary and immediately front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and an existing output schema to document return values, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It lists all the values retrieved, making it complete 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all input requirements. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable per baseline: 0 params = baseline 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves master volume, master pan, cue volume, and crossfader values. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_master_volume (which writes) and get_song_info (different scope).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for reading mixer values, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus write alternatives (e.g., set_crossfader) or similar read tools. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
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 present, so description carries burden. It states 'all available' items, implying completeness, but lacks details on side effects or data volume. Adequate for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function. No missing context for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies. Description does not need to add parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes a specific verb (list) and resource (generation options: styles, scales, chord progressions, drum patterns). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tracks or list_clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 is purely declarative with no contextual cues about prerequisites or when not to use it.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists all scenes and indicates the fields returned. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, whether the listing is exhaustive, or any side effects. The description is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and result. No unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for the simple functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and has an output schema, the description provides a clear summary of what is returned (name, color, clip count). It could be enhanced by explicitly stating that it retrieves all scenes or referencing the output schema for details, but overall it is complete enough for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics. This is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'scenes', and specifies the returned fields (name, color, clip count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_scene' which retrieves a single scene, and 'create_scene' which creates new ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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_scene' or other scene listing tools. It does not mention when to list all scenes or any prerequisites.
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. It specifies the valid value range (0.0 to 1.0) and send_index mapping, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or immediacy of the change.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three short lines covering purpose, parameter semantics, and value range. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters adequately and provides necessary context for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds essential meaning: maps send_index to return tracks and defines value range. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a send level for a track, with specific verb and resource. The explanation of send_index mapping distinguishes it from other parameter-setting siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use set_send versus alternatives like set_master_volume or set_parameter. No context on use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that duration=0 creates a step and duration>0 creates a linear ramp, adding value beyond schema. Missing details like whether it replaces existing automation or appends.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences and an example, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers points structure and duration behavior, but does not mention output, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., device must exist). Given 5 parameters and the presence of an output schema, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description only explains the 'points' parameter (structure and duration meaning). The other four parameters (track_index, slot_index, device_index, parameter_index) are left undocumented, so description only partially compensates for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create automation for a device parameter in a clip' with a specific verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'automate_mixer' and 'add_automation_points'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the points structure and provides an example, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'add_automation_points'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key side effect that all clips in the scene row are removed, which is vital for understanding the tool's impact. It does not mention undoability or permissions, but for a simple delete operation, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and efficiently conveys the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and side effect. However, it lacks details like prerequisite that the scene must exist, whether the operation is reversible, or how the scene_index is interpreted. It is 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.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, scene_index, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how to obtain the index (e.g., zero-based) or its relationship to the scene list. This lacks helpful guidance for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a scene' and explicitly mentions the cascading effect of removing all clips in that row. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_clip (which deletes a single clip) and delete_track, providing a specific 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to remove a scene and its clips) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling tools, an agent can infer the appropriate context, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that export is an attempt due to API limitations and directs the agent to workaround instructions. This is good transparency, though it could mention if any side effects or requirements exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences effectively convey purpose and key caveat. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main action and a limitation, but omits parameter details. Output schema may cover return values, so this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'export a track to a WAV file', which implies output_path, but does not explain track_index, output_path format, or duration_bars. Parameters are inadequately described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports a track to a WAV file. The verb 'export' and resource 'track' are specific, and the output format is mentioned. Among siblings, there is no other export tool, so it is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes 'attempt' and 'limited export support', advising to check the response for workarounds if export fails. This provides guidance on when the tool might not work and what to do, but does not compare to alternatives or exclude other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a safe read operation by stating it retrieves details. No side effects or constraints are mentioned, but the description is consistent and non-contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema reduces the need to explain return values, the description lacks parameter guidance. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it should clarify how to specify the device. Incomplete in that regard.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the required parameters (track_index, device_index). It only mentions 'of a device' without specifying how to identify it, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves full device details including parameter values, min, max. The use case 'discover what parameters a plugin exposes before editing them' distinguishes it from list_devices and list_parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly suggests using this tool before editing parameters to discover available parameters. Does not specify when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is 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?
No annotations provided; description only states the basic function without disclosing limitations, undo history, or destructive nature. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundant information. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a zero-parameter tool with output schema. Minor gap: no mention of undo stack behavior or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info but schema already covers parameters (none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb (undo) and target (last action in Ableton Live). Distinguishes from sibling 'redo' implicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for undoing last action, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus when not to, or alternatives like 'redo'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that freezing renders the track to audio and disables real-time plugin processing, which is key behavioral information. However, it could mention reversibility (already implied) 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences, front-loads the action and purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose and behavioral impact but misses explaining the parameter and prerequisites (e.g., track must not be empty). For a simple tool, this is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the only parameter 'track_index' (e.g., what it refers to, how to obtain it). The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no value, so the agent must infer meaning without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'freeze' and resource 'track' with a specific purpose (reduce CPU usage). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'unfreeze_track' by mentioning 'Unfreeze to edit again.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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 reduce CPU usage by freezing a track). It implicitly suggests that unfreezing is needed to edit, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other alternatives beyond unfreeze_track.
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. The description only states what the tool lists and does not mention side effects, whether it is read-only, any permissions required, or performance implications. While a list operation is likely non-destructive, the lack of transparency beyond the action 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (which defines the return structure), the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently explains the tool's scope: listing all group tracks with children and state. This is complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and select it appropriately among siblings like 'list_tracks' or 'list_scenes'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly adds meaning by stating 'all group tracks', indicating no filtering or arguments needed. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate, but it still provides context that the list is comprehensive within the session.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all group tracks in the session, including children and state. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('group tracks'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_group' (which gets a single group) and 'get_group_children' (which gets children of a specific group).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, the purpose is self-evident: use it when you need an overview of all group tracks. The context is implied by the name and description, and the lack of parameters suggests it is designed for a full listing. However, explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with similar list tools would improve clarity.
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 hints at a read-only operation via 'list', but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any other 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundancy. Every word is necessary and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists and the tool is a simple list with no parameters, the description adequately states what is returned (devices and current state of all return tracks).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters (schema description coverage 100% vacuously), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'return tracks', specifying scope 'all' and content 'with their devices and current state'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks (regular tracks) and list_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving return track information but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like list_tracks or list_devices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the analysis capabilities (compares, detects clashes, suggests chain) and parameter details, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. However, the tool name and action verbs imply analysis without 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, lists key functionalities, and then explains parameters. Every sentence is informative 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, functionality, and parameter meanings adequately. It does not explicitly address comparison with sibling tools or confirm read-only behavior, but given the output schema existence and relatively low complexity, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: it explains target_lufs with common streaming targets and wav_files as absolute paths. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this completely compensates for the missing property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes multiple WAV files together for mastering, comparing tracks, detecting frequency clashes, and giving mastering chain suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_track or analyze_mix, which focus on single tracks or mixes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for mastering analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_track, analyze_mix, or suggest_eq_settings. No when-not guidance or alternative tool references are 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 full burden. It explains the routing effect but omits prerequisites (e.g., target track must have a compressor) and potential side effects or limitations. Some behavioral aspects are transparent, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, example, and parameter roles. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks practical context like device prerequisites, error cases, or state changes, making it slightly incomplete for a configuration action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides only types and titles (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: target_track_index as 'track with the compressor/gate' and sidechain_source_index as 'track whose signal triggers ducking', significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Configure sidechain compression') and the specific resource (routing sidechain_source into compressor on target_track). It also provides a concrete example (kick sidechain on bass), distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the mechanism and gives an illustrative example, making it clear when to use (when sidechain ducking is desired). However, it lacks explicit 'when-not' or alternative tools guidance, which would be helpful given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core behavior (stop playback and reset position) clearly, though it omits details like non-destructiveness or effect on recording.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that conveys the entire purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for a simple stop action. It does not need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('playback') with the specific action of returning to position 0. It distinguishes from siblings like 'play' and 'continue_playback'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'stop_clip' or 'continue_playback'. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
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 provided, so description must carry behavioral details. It indicates a mutation ('redo') but does not specify scope, side effects, or behavior when no undone action exists. Adequate for a simple tool 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded verb and resource. Perfectly concise for the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and a simple action, the description is mostly complete. Output schema exists but description could mention return state. Minor gap: no error behavior but acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no parameter info but none is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate, and conciseness earns an extra point.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool 'redoes the last undone action' in Ableton Live, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'undo' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after an undo action by referring to 'last undone action'. Context is clear, but explicit conditions or when-not-to-use are not stated.
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 partially carries the burden by explaining the optional 'channel' parameter with examples. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., affecting recording) or required state (e.g., stop playback).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only three short lines to convey the main purpose, prerequisite, and parameter detail. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, the only optional parameter, and a critical prerequisite. It does not mention error cases or return values, but the output schema presumably handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'channel' parameter with examples and explains that 'input_name' should be obtained via get_track_routing. The other required parameters are self-explanatory given context, so the description compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set), the resource (audio/MIDI input), and the target (track). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_track_output and get_track_routing by specifying the exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using get_track_routing first to know valid input names, providing a clear prerequisite. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the hint is sufficient for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description transparently explains the tool's read-only behavior: it checks levels, identifies issues, and recommends targets. It mentions no side effects, and the action is clearly an analysis. The disclosed target levels add 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, explaining the output, and providing specific targets. No redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its expected output. The simple nature of the tool doesn't require additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so according to the rules, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, nor is it needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks gain staging across all tracks, identifies issues, and provides recommendations with specific dBFS targets. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_track or analyze_mix by focusing on gain staging and headroom optimization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for gain staging analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mixing_suggestions_for_track or analyze_mix. No when-not or context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It clearly states it's a read operation (list) with no side effects mentioned. It could be more detailed about return structure, but it's adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope. Every word adds value. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no parameters, output schema exists. Description mentions three categories (inputs, outputs, channels) which likely covers the return. Complete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so baseline 4. Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all audio I/O routing options, specifying inputs, outputs, and channels. This differentiates it from siblings like get_audio_devices (lists devices) and get_track_routing (gets routing for a specific track).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Implied usage: when you need to see all routing options. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so it's minimum viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 disclosure. While listing is inherently read-only, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any permissions or side effects. However, the verb 'list' implies safety and the tool is straightforward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. No additional context is required for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'arrangement markers/locators', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_locator' and 'jump_to_locator' by focusing on listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a simple list tool, usage may be self-evident, but explicit context or exclusion criteria are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 valid range of values for the crossfader position, which is essential behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects or safety aspects, though for a simple parameter setter this is likely sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then provides the necessary range information with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that sets a single numeric parameter and has an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the action and the valid range. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description adds the important constraint of the accepted range (-1.0 to 1.0) and meaning of 0.0, which is a significant semantic addition beyond the schema's type 'number'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 crossfader position') and specifies the exact resource being modified. The range details further clarify the scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_master_volume or set_send.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but no contextual usage advice is given.
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 provided, so description carries the burden. It implies a read-only suggestion, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or other behaviors like permissions 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with one sentence plus a list. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the key parameter. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'role' parameter with possible values, but 'track_index' is left unexplained beyond its name. Partial but helpful addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool suggests EQ settings for a track based on its role, listing specific roles. It distinguishes from sibling tools like suggest_compression_settings and mixing_suggestions_for_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use (for EQ suggestions based on role) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance among siblings. The context is clear but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the key behavior (continuing from current position). It is straightforward and sufficient for a simple playback control tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 12 words, concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity, the description covers the essential context. An output schema exists but is not needed for understanding the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by confirming the action requires no arguments, earning the baseline 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'continue' and resource 'playback', and explicitly notes it does not reset to 0, distinguishing it from the sibling 'play' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to resume from current position) but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. However, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool analyzes the mix state and gives actionable suggestions without capturing audio, implying a read-only behavior. It does not mention any side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for an analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing key aspects analyzed. Every sentence is essential, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (analyzing multiple aspects of a mix) and the existence of an output schema (which likely details the analysis results), the description adequately covers the tool's scope, specificity, and behavior. It mentions volume, gain staging, frequency clashes, balance, and actionable suggestions, which are comprehensive for a mix analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, but it is not needed. The description effectively explains what the tool does, which compensates for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current mix state (all tracks)', listing specific aspects like volume levels, gain staging, frequency clashes, and overall mix balance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_track' which focuses on individual tracks, and 'mastering_analysis' which is mastering-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for usage by stating 'without needing to capture audio', implying a non-destructive analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'analyze_track' for single-track analysis, though the sibling list is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly indicates a read-only listing operation with no destructive behavior. Could mention return format or edge cases, but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler words. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage context. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds context about the output's purpose but no parameter details needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List available audio devices on this machine' (verb+resource) and provides a specific use case (finding virtual routing device for start_audio_capture), distinguishing it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use to find the name of your virtual routing device for use with start_audio_capture.' While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use, the context is clear.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/juampicosta/ableton-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server