get_routing

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds valuable context about exactly what data is surfaced (send parameters including pre/post, sidechain inputs, MIDI, hardware outputs). No destructive or auth caveats needed for a pure read.

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?

Effectively one dense sentence plus a short imperative. The purpose is front-loaded and every clause adds scoping information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return surface, and it does so thoroughly: folder structure, routing targets, all send fields, and hardware outputs. An agent knows what it will receive and why to call it first.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document beyond the fact that no filtering arguments exist.

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?

States a specific resource (audio/MIDI signal flow) and enumerates its scope (folders, master vs. folder targets, sends with destination/level/pan/pre-post/channels/sidechain/MIDI, hardware outputs). This content profile clearly distinguishes it from get_project_overview and get_track_details without opening any schema.

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?

"Read it before changing routing" gives an explicit when-to-use directive that positions it as the prerequisite read for routing mutations. It does not name the specific alternatives (set_send, set_master_send) it feeds, so it falls short of a 5, 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.