read_automation

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

readOnlyHint already establishes safety, so the description's real contribution is disclosing the return shape ('bars/beats with values in real units') and the dual code path (points vs. envelope list) - useful context that is absent without an output schema. It stops short of describing ordering or error 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 compact sentence front-loads the core action, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys return units. No filler, though the density slightly hurts readability.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and 50% parameter coverage, the description covers the query modes and data format but leaves 'fx' and 'parameter' semantics, the return structure, and empty-result behavior unaddressed.

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 only 50%: 'track' and 'target' are documented in the schema, but 'fx' and 'parameter' are undocumented in both places. The description adds no meaning for these two parameters and merely echoes the envelope-listing mode already stated in the schema.

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 verb ('Reads') and resource ('a track's automation points') and clarifies the dual behavior (points vs. listing envelopes). The read-only 'Reads' verb implicitly contrasts with siblings like write_automation and clear_automation, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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 description implies two usage modes (read points, or list envelopes), and the schema's 'target' field even notes when to list envelopes, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as write_automation.

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