list_inputs

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that names reflect REAPER's own labeling, which is useful when matching values elsewhere, but discloses nothing about return ordering, empty-result states, or device hot-plug behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose clause lands first and the use-case clause second. Slightly awkward as a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is the only place return content can be explained — and it does say what is returned (audio interface inputs and MIDI input devices). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No misleading parameter guidance is present.

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 the resource precisely (audio inputs of the user's audio interface plus MIDI input devices) and a specific scope (what a track records from). It is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like set_record_settings or record. The only shortfall is that 'list' is implied by the noun phrasing rather than stated as an explicit verb.

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?

'for setting what a track records from' implies the workflow context (call this before setting record settings), which is genuine but indirect guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no naming of the sibling that consumes the result, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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