mixer_track_info

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

The description clearly frames this as a non-mutating information query and lists the data it reports, which covers the core behavioral expectation. It does not explicitly say that no project state is changed, nor does it mention error behavior or track-indexing edge cases, but 'detailed info' carries most of the read-only burden.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical list is dense and every element names a concrete attribute an agent would care about, so the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 single-parameter info tool with no output schema, this description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the data categories the caller should expect. The main omissions are a precise statement about the return format and track numbering, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the 'track' parameter but only refers to it obliquely via 'a mixer track'. It does not state whether the index is zero-based or one-based, what range is valid, or how the parameter selects the track, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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

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

The description states a clear information-retrieval operation on a single mixer track and enumerates the exact data it exposes (name, vol, pan, mute, solo, arm, color, stereosep, sends, fx slots). The singular 'a mixer track' distinguishes this from sibling tools like mixer_all_tracks, and the 'info' framing separates it from the many mixer_set_* tools.

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

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

The word 'info' and the field list imply that this tool is for reading a mixer track's current state, so an agent can infer the basic use case. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over mixer_all_tracks, mixer_get_eq, or related read-only sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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