get_arrangement_clips

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries behavioral burden. It does reveal that user_prompt is used for telemetry, and 'List' implies a read operation, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, side effects, or behavior on invalid track_index. This leaves some ambiguity, but the read nature is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences including a param list, with no filler. The lead sentence front-loads the exact function, and the return format and parameter explainers each earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke it: param names, behavior, and return types. It only lacks core details like time units and track-index valid range, which are minor and likely discoverable from the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains track_index as 'the index of the track to inspect' and user_prompt as telemetry purpose. This adds meaningful value over the bare integer/string schema, though track_index lacks explicit 0-based vs 1-based detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'clips placed in the Arrangement timeline for a track', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_snapshot (Session view) and get_track_info. The scope and return fields are stated unambiguously.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, though the use case is implied by 'List all clips placed in the Arrangement timeline for a track'. It does not mention alternatives like get_clip_notes, so the agent must infer when to choose this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.