get_arrangement_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Side effects: none', specifies the return fields (start_time, end_time, length in beats, sorted by position), and documents the CAPABILITY_UNAVAILABLE edge case rather than an empty list. It does not state permissions or pagination behavior, but for a local read tool the disclosure is above average.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then cleanly separates Side effects, Example, and Edge cases. Every sentence earns its place, though the sectioned formatting is slightly more verbose than a single tight paragraph would be.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, ordering, side effects, and a failure mode, which is close to complete. The remaining gap is how to obtain a valid track_index and the indexing convention.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required track_index. The example get_arrangement_clips(3) demonstrates that the argument is an integer track index, but it never explains what the index refers to (0- vs 1-based) or that it comes from get_track_list, leaving a real gap.

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 ('List'), resource ('Arrangement clips'), scope ('one track's'), and the aspect returned ('their placement on the timeline'). The phrase 'Arrangement clips' distinguishes it from the many session-clip siblings (get_clip_summary, get_clip_info, get_clip_notes), so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose; there is no explicit 'use this when…' or a named alternative such as get_clip_info for session clips. The agent can infer it is for inspecting a track's arrangement timeline, but no when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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