get_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses non-linear volume/panning scale, dB display behavior, the guard for reading arm only when can_be_armed allows it, the null result when not applicable, and the index-probing batch strategy for device names and clip slots. This is rich, measured context beyond what any schema could convey.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then uses short labeled paragraphs for arguments and behavior caveats. Every sentence adds essential information, and the structure makes the caveats easy to scan without bloating the text.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only two parameters, the description is complete. It covers the main return categories, the special scaling of volume/panning, the arm edge case, and the probing limitation with Live's collections. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 fully explain the parameters. It does: track's interpretation changes based on kind, kind accepts track/return/master, and track is ignored for master. It also clarifies nuanced output semantics tied to these parameters, such as arm read restrictions and normalized volume/panning.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one track's mixer state, flags, device chain, sends and clip slots.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session, get_clip, and get_devices. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 gives clear context for when get_track is appropriate: when reading a single track's state, including mixer, flags, devices, sends, and clip slots. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only, single-track focus is obvious enough to guide selection.

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