get_arrangement_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List ... already on' implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses the coordinate unit (beats), but it omits error behavior for an invalid track and any return-shape hints, so disclosure is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the unit qualifier last; nothing is wasted. It is efficient though perhaps too terse to be maximally helpful.

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 read tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is thin. It does not indicate what the returned clips contain or how track_index must be supplied.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (track_index) is never explained. 'On a track's' only loosely ties it to a track; nothing addresses index origin, zero/one-based indexing, or validity, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('clips on a track's Arrangement timeline'), which distinguishes it from session-clip siblings like fire_clip and create_clip. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or contrast condition.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_notes or arrangement_audio_clip. Usage is only implied by the Arrangement-timeline scoping.

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