Get mixer track routing

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not contradict and adds minimal value. It shows the return format, but the output schema exists, so this is redundant. The description adequately reflects the read-only nature but doesn't disclose potential errors or limits.

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 extremely concise—only two lines—with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes the output structure inline. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the key return structure. It is complete for the simple query operation. However, it lacks any note about error handling or invalid indices, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 single parameter 'track' is well-described in the input schema ('Mixer track index (0 = Master).'), which covers 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it retrieves routing information (destination tracks) for a specific mixer track. The structure '{track, name, routes_to:[{dst, dst_name, level?}]}' precisely indicates the output. It distinguishes from siblings like fl_get_channel_routing (channels) and fl_get_routing_all (all routing) by focusing on a single mixer 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the lack of usage context makes it less helpful for an agent to decide.

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