read_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the optional start/end positions, the default behavior of skipping an initial beat 0 guard, the clamping of points to 2-512, and the return shape. It does not mention whether this is a pure read or whether it requires any specific state, but it is clearly a read operation and the return description adds meaningful transparency.

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 compact, clearly structured with Args and Returns sections, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds information. It could be slightly more concise in the Returns line, but it is appropriately sized.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be fully detailed) and 6 parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers parameter semantics, defaults, constraints, and return contents. The only minor gap is the exact format of the LOM path and whether any special track/slot indexing conventions apply, but these are not severe given the output schema and sibling context.

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, and it does. It explains track, slot, parameter, start, end, and points in plain terms, including that start is in clip-local beats and that points is clamped. It could add more detail on the LOM path format for parameter, but it covers all 6 parameters meaningfully.

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 a specific verb ('Sample') and resource ('envelope curve for a parameter on a Session clip'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_automation and clear_automation. Its purpose is unambiguous.

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 this tool is for reading automation/envelope data from a Session clip, and sibling names make the contrast with write_automation/clear_automation obvious. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as read_clip_notes or lom_get, but the specific scoping to envelope curves provides clear context.

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