get_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Reads the chain and changes nothing in it' aligns with them. Beyond annotations it adds substantial behavior: the empty-chain case returns device_count: 0 rather than an error, the configure_needed flag semantics for third-party plug-ins, the parameter_count_at_least sentinel when the probe cannot settle, and the note that only Live's GUI lifts the configuration limitation.

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 the one-sentence purpose followed by the one-line safety statement, and uses clear Returns/Note sections. It is long, but the Note's content about configure_needed and parameter_count_at_least is substantive and necessary for correct interpretation. The Returns section slightly overlaps with the existing output schema, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, non-mutating behavior, return-shape narrative, edge case handling, the configure_needed caveat, and routing to sibling tools. No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 100%: both 'kind' (with its enum of track/return/master) and 'track' (index in song.tracks counted from 0) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline-3 rule when schema coverage is high.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List a track's device chain') and enumerates the exact fields returned ('names, class names, on/off, parameter counts'). It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating it counts parameters but does not list them (that is describe's job) and that mixer/sends/clip slots belong to get_track.

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 explicit routing: 'call ``describe`` with ``with_parameters=True``' for parameter details, and 'call get_track instead of adding a second call here' for mixer/sends/clip slots. It also provides sequencing guidance ('Read the parameter count first') and explains that reported device indices are the addressing scheme used by set_parameter, delete_device, and song.move_device, telling the agent exactly when this tool's output is needed.

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