get_tracks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list format, track properties returned), whether it requires a pre-loaded file (hinted by 'fileId' parameter but not explicitly stated), or any limitations (e.g., file size constraints, error conditions). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get list of tracks in a MIDI file') followed by the key capability ('with optional filtering by channel or program'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering capability but doesn't address important contextual elements like what constitutes a 'track' in MIDI terms, what information is returned about each track, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'load_midi_file' tool (which likely must be called first). The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values, which it doesn't.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering by channel or program' which corresponds to 'channelFilter' and 'programFilter' parameters. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between 'fileId' and 'filePath' parameters or provide additional context about parameter usage beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Get list of tracks') and resource ('in a MIDI file'), with specific scope ('with optional filtering by channel or program'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_midi_events' or 'get_midi_summary' by focusing on tracks rather than events or overall summary. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_track_details' which might provide more detailed information about individual tracks.

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 usage context through 'optional filtering by channel or program', suggesting this tool is for retrieving track lists with specific filters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_track_details' (for detailed track info) or 'get_midi_summary' (for overall file metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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