get_session_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares 'Side effects: none', gives a concrete example call, and discloses an edge case (fails when the Remote Script is unavailable). It stops short of describing the exact return shape, but the behavioral profile is well covered for a read tool.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines that each earn their place: purpose first, then side effects, example, and edge cases. No padding or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and the example ('returns tempo and playhead state') partially does so. It is adequate for a simple 0-param read tool, though a fuller enumeration of returned fields would close the remaining gap.

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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation via the empty example call.

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 ('Read') and resource ('top-level transport and time-signature state'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_session_overview or get_bridge_status, leaving overlap for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over the many sibling state readers (get_session_overview, get_bridge_status, get_loop_settings). The only conditional information is a failure edge case, not a usage routing rule.

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