Ableton MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation1/5
There is substantial overlap between direct OSC tools and ClyphX-based tools for the same functions (e.g., create track, set tempo, fire clip). Many tools have ambiguous boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the correct one.
Naming Consistency3/5Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but there are exceptions like 'undo', 'redo', and compound names like 'capture_and_insert_scene'. The clyphx_* prefix creates a consistent sub-namespace, but the overall naming is mixed.
Tool Count1/5At 143 tools, the server is far too large for typical MCP use. Many tools are redundant (e.g., multiple ways to create tracks) or overly granular, making the surface unwieldy and difficult to navigate.
Completeness5/5The tool set covers virtually every aspect of Ableton Live: transport control, tracks, clips, devices, routing, scene management, MIDI editing, automation, and advanced ClyphX integration. No obvious gaps for core DAW operations.
Average 3.4/5 across 143 of 143 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates the action (duplicate loop content) without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations. It lacks behavioral context, parameter clarification, and usage guidance, though the output schema may partially compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the two required parameters (track_index, clip_index) or their roles. This forces the agent to guess their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool doubles the clip's loop length by duplicating loop content. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that set loop bounds or toggle looping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_loop_end or set_clip_looping. There is no explanation of prerequisites or when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It only states basic action, omitting side effects like whether loop is implicitly enabled, error conditions (e.g., end before start), and return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but too brief; misses essential details that would warrant its length. Could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, description fails to mention return values, prerequisites, or relationship with other clip settings (looping, start). Incomplete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description adds no details about parameters (clip_index, track_index, position). No constraints or context beyond the schema's type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (Set), resource (clip loop end position), and unit (beats), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like set_clip_loop_start. However, it does not clarify whether setting the end implicitly adjusts loop length or enables looping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., set_clip_loop_length), prerequisites (e.g., loop enabled), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It says 'toggle', but the parameter 'enabled' indicates a set operation. It does not disclose side effects, such as interactions with overdub or punch-in modes, or whether it clears or preserves other settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words plus context). While brevity is generally good, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. The term 'toggle' is ambiguous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature (one boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description could still provide more context about expected behavior, such as what 'arrangement record mode' means and how it relates to other record modes. It lacks integration with the sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only repeats the tool's purpose and does not explain what 'enabled' means or its effect on recording state. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle arrangement record mode' specifies the tool's action and the target ('arrangement record mode'). However, 'toggle' is slightly misleading as the tool likely sets a state via the 'enabled' parameter rather than toggling. It distinguishes from 'set_session_record' by specifying 'arrangement', but could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_session_record' or 'trigger_session_record'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Stop a clip slot.' It does not mention whether it resets the clip position, if the slot needs to be playing, what happens if the slot is empty, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary information. It is front-loaded with the action, but the lack of detail makes it insufficient for a tool with two required parameters and many siblings. Adequate only if the tool is trivially simple, which it is not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required parameters, no annotations, and the description provides no parameter info, usage context, or behavioral details. Even though an output schema exists, the description remains incomplete. An agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%: the description does not explain 'track_index' or 'clip_index' at all. The schema only gives titles and types. With no parameter descriptions, the agent lacks any semantic context for the integer values (e.g., zero-indexed? range?). Description must compensate but fails completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('clip slot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fire_clip_slot' (fires) and 'stop_clip' (stops a clip, but not necessarily a slot). However, it does not explain what a 'clip slot' is, which may be ambiguous for new users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'stop_clip', 'stop_all_clips', or 'stop_track_clips'. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, forcing the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral load. It only states the action and range, omitting details like out-of-range handling, destructiveness (mutating clip), side effects, or required permissions. The range constraint is helpful but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the action and resource. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; a slightly longer description including parameter roles would be more useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations of how clip identity is resolved (track+clip indices), the meaning of 'fine' vs 'coarse', and success/failure indicators. The output schema exists but is not described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'cents' parameter and its range, but provides no meaning for 'track_index' or 'clip_index', which are essential for identifying the target clip. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set fine pitch transposition) and the resource (a clip) with a specific unit (cents) and range (-50.0 to 50.0). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'set_clip_pitch' by the 'fine' qualifier, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_pitch or set_clip_gain. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'enable or disable punch in' but doesn't explain what punch in does, prerequisites, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it is too brief and could benefit from a slightly expanded structure with context. Adequate conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter boolean tool in a recording context, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how punch in interacts with other recording states, output behavior, or any output schema details. Incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond 'enable or disable', which is already implied by the parameter name 'enabled'. Does not compensate for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets (enables/disables) punch in. The name and sibling 'set_punch_out' help differentiate. However, it does not explain the concept of punch in for users unfamiliar with DAW recording.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_record_mode or set_session_record. The description lacks context of recording workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the burden is on the description. It only says 'select a clip slot', but does not disclose behavior such as whether it changes the UI selection, requires an existing clip, or impacts playback. This leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices informativeness. It could be improved by adding a brief clarification on the effect of selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context of simple parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output schema (though one exists), error conditions, or domain-specific constraints. An AI agent would lack sufficient information to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names. It simply restates 'by track and scene index' without explaining valid ranges, indexing bases, or the relationship to clips.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'select' and the resource 'clip slot' indexed by track and scene. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like 'fire_clip' or 'set_clip_name', though it does not elaborate on the exact meaning of 'select' in the Ableton context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., valid track/scene indices), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., looping enabled), error conditions, or whether it modifies play state. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but omits essential information. While not verbose, the lack of structure (e.g., separate parameter details) reduces usability. An adequate balance for a minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing (not provided), the description ignores return values and fails to cover necessary context for correct invocation, such as prerequisites or parameter constraints. Incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameter roles. It only hints at the 'position' unit ('in beats') but does not describe track_index or clip_index, nor their constraints. Minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Set') and the target ('clip loop start position') with the unit ('in beats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_clip_loop_end and set_clip_looping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool (e.g., requires loop to be enabled) or alternatives. The agent must infer usage context from siblings without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'set', indicating mutation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., playback state changes, range limits, or unit semantics).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It could be expanded to include a brief usage hint or parameter context while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, zero param descriptions, and an existing output schema (not detailed), the description is incomplete. It omits constraints, return values, and relevant sibling distinctions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description offers no explanation of the three required parameters (track_index, clip_index, position). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the clip's playback position in beats, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_clip_looping or set_clip_gain, which affect different clip properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., clip existence) or scenarios where other tools like set_clip_start_marker might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible or if it affect clip playback. The minimal description fails to communicate side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and additional context that would justify its brevity. It does not waste words but also does not add substantial information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the existence of an output schema, the description omits important context such as the relationship to other clip markers (end marker, looping) and any constraints on position. It is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the three parameters (track_index, clip_index, position). The agent receives no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the clip's start marker position' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (clip's start marker position), differentiating it from siblings like set_clip_end_marker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_position or set_clip_end_marker. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool has no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral implications of setting the warp mode, such as whether it affects playback, requires the clip to be warped first, or has side effects on audio processing. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences, each serving a clear purpose (purpose statement and value mapping). However, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameter context without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of clip manipulation and the rich set of sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how warp mode interacts with other clip settings, nor does it describe the output schema or confirm the operation's idempotence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'mode' parameter receives explanation via value mapping. The 'track_index' and 'clip_index' parameters are not described, and with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately. Agents may infer their purpose from the tool name, but explicit guidance is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function ('Set clip warp mode') and provides a mapping of integer values to mode names. It is specific and distinguishes from general 'set_clip' operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like set_clip_warping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_clip_warping for toggling warping, or other set_clip_* tools). The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic toggle. It doesn't specify that setting enabled=true turns on punch out and false turns it off, nor does it disclose any side effects or implications for recording behavior. With no annotations, the burden is fully on the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and concise, but it sacrifices clarity. It is a single sentence that could be more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., by mapping the parameter value to the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean toggle, the description is almost adequate but missing explicit parameter mapping. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could still be slightly more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single boolean parameter 'enabled' is not explained in the description. While the phrase 'enable or disable' implies the parameter's role, it does not explicitly state that true enables and false disables. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: enabling or disabling the punch out feature. While 'punch out' is a standard DAW term, the description could be more explicit about what punch out is, but it distinguishes it from sibling set_punch_in.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools like set_punch_in, nor any context-specific usage recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it affects all automation, requires specific mode, is undoable, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no annotations, the description is very minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (though an output schema exists) or clarify 'any automation'. The tool's complexity is low, but the description leaves too much ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no param info because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('re-enable') and the resource ('automation that has been overridden by manual changes'), but it is somewhat vague about which automation (track, device, clip) is affected. It distinguishes from siblings as no other tool explicitly does this, but the scope is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what happens if already playing, whether it starts from the beginning or current position, or any side effects. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it sacrifices some detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and presence of many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or how it interacts with other playback controls, leaving the tool contextually incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds no parameter info, but per guidelines, zero params yields a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start playing the Ableton session.' clearly states the action (start playing) and the resource (Ableton session). It differentiates from siblings like 'stop_playback' and 'continue_playback' by implying a start from the beginning, though not explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'continue_playback' or 'set_song_time' with playback. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clips), error conditions (e.g., track out of range, item not found), or requirements (e.g., Live must be open).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for parameter details. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly more compact, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (unknown content), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks important context such as prerequisites (Live running), error handling, and how 'via ClyphX' affects usage. Many sibling ClyphX tools exist, so the agent would benefit from more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates somewhat: it clarifies track is 1-based integer, item_type has three enum values (DEV, SAMPLE, CLIP), and name is the item name/path. However, it does not specify the exact path format or how to locate items in the browser.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('load an item') and the resource ('from Live's browser onto a track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying browser loading via ClyphX, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like load_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., Live must be running, browser must contain items), or situations where it should not be used. The description only lists parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the index parameter and its semantics, but it does not describe what happens during creation (e.g., scene shifts, effect on other scenes, or whether it returns anything). The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core action and then list the parameter. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of many scene-related sibling tools and the lack of annotation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of scene is created (empty? with clips?), the effect on other scenes, or how it relates to similar functions like capture_and_insert_scene.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the index parameter as 'Position to insert (-1 = end)', adding meaning beyond the schema's default value and type. However, it does not elaborate on other potential aspects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new scene'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fire_scene, set_scene_name, etc., but does not clarify how it differs from capture_and_insert_scene (which also creates a scene with captured content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., capture_and_insert_scene, duplicate_scene). The description implies it is for creating empty scenes, but this is not stated, and no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether the destination clip is overwritten, if audio is affected, or permissions required). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the action and lists parameters efficiently. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections for parameters).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an output schema not shown (but present), the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., what happens if source is empty, destination occupied), error conditions, or return values. A simple tool but needs more context for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that indices are 0-based, which is helpful, but does not explain the role of each parameter beyond the names. More detail about each parameter's meaning or constraints would be needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Duplicate a clip from one slot to another.' The verb 'duplicate' and resource 'clip' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_clip_loop (which duplicates the loop) and other clip operations by specifying source and destination slots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The only addition is that indices are 0-based, but no context about intended use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at behavior (treating a non-selected scene as if it were selected) but does not disclose side effects on selection state or other behavioral traits. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which makes it concise, but it sacrifices clarity on parameter semantics. It is adequately front-loaded but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is too terse. It fails to clarify parameter usage or behavioral nuances, making it insufficient for complete understanding and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation for the only parameter 'scene_index' (e.g., indexing convention, schema, range), leaving the agent without essential information for invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description concisely states the action ('Fire a scene') and the specific behavior ('as if it were the selected scene'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fire_scene' and 'fire_selected_scene'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for firing a specific scene without changing the current selection, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any preconditions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it retrieves clips; does not disclose read-only nature, potential side effects, or behavior when track has no clips.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action and returns. Could include parameter hint but not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Mentions returned fields and has output schema, but does not confirm it returns a list or handle edge cases. Missing context for parameter and usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not mention the required 'track_index' parameter. Agent must infer its meaning from the tool name alone, adding no value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'clips in Arrangement View for a track', listing returned fields. Distinguishes from sibling get_clip_info which targets a single clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clip_info or get_track_data. Does not specify prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns 'complete input/output routing info', which suggests read-only, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., track existence) or side effects. The brief description does not adequately compensate for missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits important information. It is appropriately front-loaded but not sufficiently detailed for a tool with no annotations and many siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool among many similar siblings. The tool is simple, yet the description is minimal and does not cover necessary context for an AI agent to select it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no extra meaning for the only parameter 'track_index'. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description fails to add value beyond the bare schema, such as clarifying the indexing base (0-based) or validity requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'complete input/output routing info for a track', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_routing (set) and get_available_routing (available vs current).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like get_available_routing or set_track_routing. The description implies a read operation but lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the toggle action. It does not explain the effect on the arrangement, prerequisites, or side effects, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices completeness. While it is front-loaded, it lacks substance beyond restating the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description does not mention return values, side effects, or typical usage context. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to reduce the description's burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'enabled' is a boolean with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely echoes the parameter's purpose ('Enable or disable') without adding details like defaults, toggle behavior, or state implications.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action: enable or disable arrangement overdub. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_loop or set_record_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to enable or disable arrangement overdub, nor are there any alternatives mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic mutation. The description is too minimal for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence plus parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and a simple mutation, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention error conditions, prerequisites, or that this is a write operation (though obvious). The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only trivial explanations: 'The scene index (0-based)' and 'New scene name'. No constraints (e.g., name length) or valid ranges are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the name of a scene' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fire_scene, set_scene_color, or create_scene, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist), nor any exclusion criteria (e.g., 'do not use if scene index is out of range').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions technology (AbletonOSC) without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or success/failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) but lacks substance. While there is no fluff, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required parameters, no enums, and an output schema (unreferenced), the description fails to explain what the output contains, error conditions, or how to interpret results. It is incomplete for a simple setter without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and descriptions are absent. The description only gives two examples for routing_type ('Master', 'Ext. Out') but does not explain valid values, format, or the meaning of track_index (e.g., 0-based vs 1-based).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set track output routing type' and provides examples like 'Master' and 'Ext. Out'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_track_input_routing by specifying 'output routing'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., set_track_routing, get_track_routing_info). It lacks prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or return values. As a tool that can change global state (playback, record, etc.), this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then lists actions in a readable format. It is reasonably concise given the need to document many possibilities, though a more structured layout (e.g., grouping actions) could improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with many sibling tools, minimal schema, and no annotations. The description lacks output information, error behavior, and detailed usage context. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single 'action' parameter with no description or enum, but the description compensates by listing many valid action strings and their meanings. This provides significant guidance beyond the schema, though syntax for parameterized actions could be clearer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes ClyphX Pro global actions and lists many examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that provide dedicated functions for the same actions (e.g., set_tempo, set_metronome).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative sibling tools. The description only lists actions without advising on selection criteria or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Duplicate a track' without explaining side effects (e.g., new track creation, copied clips/devices, permissions needed). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Very concise, but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context about what duplication entails and any return values. Currently, it leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds critical context that track_index is 0-based, which is not in the schema (0% coverage). This clearly adds value beyond the schema for the only parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it duplicates a track, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling duplication tools like duplicate_scene, duplicate_clip, etc., which reduces clarity for selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., duplicate_clip or duplicate_scene). No prerequisites or context provided, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or what happens at boundaries (e.g., last cue point). Insufficient for a mutation-like action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded. However, it lacks any structured information beyond the action, making it efficient but not fully informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description still lacks completeness. It does not define 'cue point' context, ordering, or edge-case behavior (e.g., at start/end). Output schema may cover return values, but usage context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description has no burden to explain parameter meaning. The baseline is 4, and the description adequately identifies the tool's sole purpose without needing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Jump to the next cue point' – a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'jump_to_prev_cue' or 'jump_to_cue_point', which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for usage, leaving the agent without explicit when-to/when-not-to information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description only states action without disclosing side effects, error handling, or permission requirements for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus parameter list; efficient and front-loaded. Lacks structure but no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given existence of output schema and many sibling device tools, description lacks details on return values, error cases, or typical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds that indices are 0-based, which is not in schema (coverage 0%). However, does not explain what track_index and device_index refer to beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Delete a device from a track' with specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like delete_track and delete_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use, prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), or alternatives among siblings. No context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action but omits critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to contained clips, and any authorization requirements. The description is minimal and fails to disclose the destructive nature beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence specifying the action and parameter, with no verbose or redundant text. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive action with a single parameter, the description is somewhat incomplete: it does not mention output schema (though one exists), side effects on clips, or confirmatory feedback. However, given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description meets a minimum viable standard.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the '0-based' specification for scene_index, which is helpful but does not provide range constraints, error behavior, or examples. The baseline for zero schema coverage is 4, but the description adds only minimal value, hence a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'delete_scene' and description clearly state the verb 'delete' and resource 'scene', with the method 'by index'. This effectively distinguishes it from other scene-related sibling tools like create_scene, duplicate_scene, or fire_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_scene or fire_scene. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as ensuring the scene exists or handling errors, nor any context about its effect on clips or undoability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (start playing) without mentioning permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two lines of description plus parameter list. Key information is front-loaded with the verb and context. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) which reduces burden on description for return values. However, description does not mention what happens after firing (e.g., clip starts, any confirmation). Adequate for a simple action but could include error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the 0-based indexing context for both parameters, which is not in the schema (only integer type). Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially, but lacks range or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fire' with explanation 'start playing' and the resource 'a clip in Session View'. It distinguishes the tool from 'stop_clip' but does not differentiate from the sibling 'fire_clip_slot', which seems similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fire_clip_slot', 'stop_clip', or 'stop_all_clips'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only explains the special meaning of end=-1. It does not cover error handling, return format, or what happens with invalid indices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (12 words) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured with parameters details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema (assumed), the description covers the key special behavior of end=-1. However, it lacks details about ordering, error conditions, and whether all tracks are included.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'end' parameter's default and sentinel value but does not explain 'start', indexing (0-based vs 1-based), or range inclusivity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('names of tracks') with a specific scope ('in range'). It is unambiguous and directly addresses the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_track_info or get_track_data. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely states the action. It does not explain effects on playback, whether the position is in beats or seconds, reversibility, or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as parameter semantics, return value details, and behavioral implications. For a modification tool with three unannotated parameters, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not add meaning to the three parameters. 'position' is implied to be the new end marker position, but units are unspecified. 'track_index' and 'clip_index' are left entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Set') and a clear resource ('the clip's end marker position'). It clearly identifies the targeted property and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_start_marker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_start_marker or set_clip_loop_end. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutation safety, required authorization, or potential side effects (e.g., whether it affects playback). It simply states the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words, containing exactly the necessary information with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description lacks critical details (e.g., index bases, boolean expectations) for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (looping, clip_index, track_index) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. The agent receives no guidance on values like index ordering or boolean format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable or disable clip looping' clearly states the verb (enable/disable) and resource (clip looping), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_loop (session loop) and set_clip_loop_start/end which deal with loop boundaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for toggling clip looping but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., set_clip_loop_start/end) or prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the basic behavior (toggle warping) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what warping entails. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden, but the simple toggle action is adequately conveyed without misleading information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is direct and concise. Every word is necessary, and the action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean set tool, the description is minimal but lacks definition of 'warping' and its implications. Given the complexity of other sibling tools and the existence of an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage and three parameters, the description fails to explain the meaning or purpose of track_index, clip_index, and warping. It only names 'warping' without context, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action (enable/disable) and resource (warping on an audio clip). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_clip_warp_mode, which sets the warp mode rather than toggling it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_warp_mode. No prerequisites or context for warping are provided, making it unclear when a user should choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains that color is an index from the 'Ableton color palette,' adding context beyond the schema's integer type. However, it omits whether the operation is reversible, has side effects, or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be more concise while still covering essential details. It is acceptable but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two integer parameters, output schema exists), the description covers basic functionality. However, it does not address error conditions, valid parameter ranges, or how this tool interacts with other scene-related tools, leaving moderate gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that scene_index is 0-based and color references the 'Ableton color palette,' which provides basic semantics beyond raw schema types. However, it does not specify valid ranges or constraints for either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the color of a scene,' specifying the action (set) and resource (scene color). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that set colors for tracks or clips, as the resource is explicitly different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_clip_color, set_track_color). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'playing/selected clip' and lists actions, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., if no clip is playing), or whether actions are toggled or set.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first defines purpose, second lists examples. Front-loaded and no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has low complexity (2 params) and an output schema exists. Description covers purpose and common actions but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains track as integer and action as ClyphX Pro action string, and gives four examples. However, it does not specify exact format for action values (e.g., whether spaces or caps are required), leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes a ClyphX Pro clip loop action on a track's playing/selected clip. The verb 'execute' and resource 'clip loop action' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_clip_looping by using ClyphX Pro syntax.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_looping or set_clip_loop_start. The description only provides examples of actions but does not explain context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create' which implies mutation, but fails to disclose any side effects, required permissions, or behavioral nuances beyond a simple creation action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use this 'clyphx_' prefixed variant over the similar sibling 'create_return_track', which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('new return track'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_return_track' which likely has the same purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_return_track'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists action examples but does not disclose side effects, error handling, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. The list of actions is organized clearly. One sentence could be dropped if redundant, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete for the action format but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavior beyond listing actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a list of action patterns, adding some meaning to the action parameter, but the track parameter is described only by its schema name. The examples help but not all parameters are fully explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes a ClyphX Pro device action on a track, with specific verb and resource. It lists many common action patterns, distinguishing it from siblings like select_device or set_device_parameter which are more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 specify when to prefer this over other device manipulation tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action ('List') without disclosing whether it is read-only, what happens if the track or slots are invalid, or any side effects. The lack of such details limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence plus a short parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and adds necessary parameter info without extraneous text. Could be slightly more compact but currently efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's basic function. However, it lacks specificity about whether empty slots are included, the structure of the returned data, or constraints like track existence. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: track_index as 0-based and max_slots as the maximum number of slots to check with default 20. This provides useful context beyond the raw schema, though still minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all clips in a track's Session View slots'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clip_info (which targets a specific clip) or has_clip (which checks existence).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_clip_info or has_clip. It does not mention when to choose this tool or any preconditions like requiring a valid track index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given that no annotations are provided, the description adds value by disclosing the recording behavior when the slot is empty and the track is armed. However, it does not cover the behavior when the slot already has a clip or what happens if the track is not armed, which are important for understanding the full range of actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core action and a key condition. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, adding a brief separate note on parameter semantics would improve structure without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface with two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The conditional behavior is mentioned, but the description lacks details on what happens in the default case (slot with a clip) and any required state (like track arm). This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for lacking parameter documentation. It does not explain what 'track_index' and 'clip_index' mean (e.g., zero-based indexing, range, or how to obtain them). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but ambiguity remains, making this a weakness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fire' and resource 'clip slot', and adds a key conditional ('starts recording if empty and track is armed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fire_clip' which likely fires an existing clip, and 'fire_scene' which fires a whole scene. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the typical behavior when the slot already contains a clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for launching clip slots or starting recording, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'fire_clip' or 'stop_clip_slot'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and conditional note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only indicates the return type (display string) but does not disclose potential failures (e.g., invalid indices), read-only nature, or side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It provides a clear example and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of parameter documentation and usage guidance makes it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (track_index, device_index, parameter_index) with no descriptions. The schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what these indices refer to or how to obtain them. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'human-readable display string for a parameter value', with concrete examples like '2500 Hz'. This distinguishes it from related tools such as get_device_parameter_value (raw value) and get_device_parameter_range (range info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a formatted display string, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_device_parameter_value. 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the return value semantics (-1 means none), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any constraints like track_index validity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the entire purpose. Every word adds value; there is no extraneous information. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which the description partially explains via the -1 semantics), the tool is simple but missing parameter documentation. For a getter with one required param, the description should include at least a brief explanation of 'track_index'. The output schema can handle return structure, but the input is not covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON Schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description also fails to explain the single parameter 'track_index' — it does not indicate its meaning, required status, or valid range. This forces the agent to rely on the schema title 'Track Index' which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the specific resource 'the index of the currently playing clip slot on a track', and the special case '-1 = none'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fire_clip' or 'get_clip_info' which involve different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is a read-only query or suggest using 'get_clip_info' for more details. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It fails to disclose side effects, constraints (e.g., whether name can be empty), or what happens if the clip does not exist. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. Every part is informative, and it is front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an output schema that is not described, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not cover error handling, return values, or prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist). Incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations (0-based indices, new name). This adds some meaning beyond schema titles but lacks detail on constraints or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Set the name of a clip.' This clearly identifies the action (set) and resource (clip name). Among sibling tools like set_clip_color, set_clip_gain, etc., this tool is uniquely distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for setting a clip name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is brief and does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With no annotations, the description should clarify if there are side effects, constraints, or required permissions, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the overall workflow (e.g., whether set_loop must be enabled first) and does not explain return values or side effects. For a tool with one parameter, it is minimally adequate but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that the length is 'in beats', which provides unit context beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail (e.g., valid range, rounding behavior) would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('arrangement loop length'), and the unit ('beats'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_loop (which toggles loop mode) and set_loop_start (which sets the start point).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_loop or set_clip_looping. No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose key behaviors such as whether it toggles, how it decides between set and delete, or what happens if a cue already exists at the position. With no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context about the tool's conditional behavior (set vs delete) and does not hint at the return value. For a tool with no parameters, the description should explain the toggle logic to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 as per guidelines for high schema coverage. No extra credit given as the description does not elaborate on the set/delete semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool can set or delete a cue point at the current playback position. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like jump_to_cue_point or get_cue_points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to other cue-related tools. It does not specify when it sets vs deletes, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or impacts on references, leaving behavioral uncertainty for this mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise with front-loaded purpose and a clear parameter list; no extraneous content, though structure could be enhanced.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, description lacks details about return values or post-rename effects; adequate for a simple rename but incomplete for complex workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value by stating track_index is 0-based and name is the new name, but this is minimal and compensates only partially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'set_track_name' and description 'Rename a track.' clearly convey the action (rename) and resource (track), distinguishing it from siblings like get_track_names and set_track_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no prerequisites or context for usage provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether previous routing is overwritten), required permissions, or return values. Mentions ClyphX Pro but no behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose sentence and a well-structured parameter list. Each line adds relevant information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no enums, the description covers parameter semantics but lacks return value explanation (output schema exists but not described) and prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, valid routing sources). Does not reference related tools like get_available_routing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief meaning and examples (e.g., track_number is 1-based, input_source like 'Ext. In'). Adds value beyond schema titles, though does not enumerate all possible values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'track routing' using ClyphX Pro. It distinguishes implicit from siblings like set_track_output_routing by combining both input and output routing in one tool, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_input_routing or set_track_output_routing. 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what is recorded but does not disclose whether the action toggles or starts a mode, whether it overwrites existing arrangement data, or any state assumptions. Behavioral traits like side effects or prerequisites are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value: states the action, specifies what it records, and gives a real-world use. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having zero parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks key context: whether the recording is modal or one-shot, what happens to existing arrangement clips, or what the return value indicates. For a simple tool, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the name besides a specific use case. It does not provide additional context about the action's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' and the resource 'Session Record mode', and explains what it does: records session view clip launches and parameter changes into arrangement view. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_session_record' by focusing on capturing real-time performances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_session_record' or 'set_arrangement_overdub'. It implies use for capturing performances but lacks context on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what actions do (e.g., 'Toggle mute', 'Delete notes') but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, potential destructive behavior, or system state changes. For example, it doesn't specify if actions are undoable or require a clip to be selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, using a bullet-like list to present many actions efficiently. It is front-loaded with the general purpose and then lists examples. No extraneous text, though the list could be formatted as actual bullets for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, two parameters) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the track parameter (likely an index), default behavior, error handling, or what happens when invalid actions are provided. Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or success/failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides examples of valid action strings (e.g., 'CLIP NOTES REV', 'CLIP NOTES(C3) REV'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'action' property. However, it does not formally describe the 'track' parameter or the exact syntax requirements for the action string, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: executing ClyphX Pro clip note manipulation actions. It lists many specific actions, making it easy to understand what the tool does. Its sibling tools include other clyphx actions like clyphx_clip and clyphx_global, but this tool is distinctly focused on clip notes, so differentiation is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a list of common actions but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for clip note manipulations, but there is no context like 'use for editing individual notes' or comparison with similar tools like add_clip_notes or remove_clip_notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose potential side effects, success indicators, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic creation act.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (not detailed), the description lacks information about return values or success confirmation. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description cannot add meaning beyond schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action ('Create'), resource ('audio track'), and tool context ('ClyphX Pro'). Distinguishes from sibling create_midi_track and create_return_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. Just a bare statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states only the action of creation, with no mention of side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. For a creation tool, minimal disclosure is provided, but the lack of any behavioral detail is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is meaningful with no unnecessary detail. It is optimally succinct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks contextual cues about when to use this specific version over the 'create_midi_track' sibling, which slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool creates a new MIDI track using ClyphX Pro. It specifies the verb 'Create' and the resource 'MIDI track', and adds the context 'using ClyphX Pro'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'create_midi_track' which likely serves a similar purpose without ClyphX Pro.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_midi_track' or other track creation tools. The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent with no guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does, not potential error conditions, side effects (likely none), or performance implications. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable; however, it does not disclose non-obvious behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose. The output schema is present, so return value details need not be in the description. However, the description could mention that the output schema lists routing options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the track_index parameter beyond its name. No additional meaning, valid ranges, or examples are provided. The parameter is required but its semantics are left to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all available input and output routing options for a track, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_routing (which sets routing) and get_track_routing_info (which likely returns current routing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_track_routing_info or set_track_routing. Sibling tools exist for routing management, but no contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the output format is (e.g., list of note objects with properties), whether the tool is read-only, or any constraints (e.g., only works with MIDI clips). This is insufficient for behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence for purpose and a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, though it is so minimal that it lacks context. Still, conciseness is a positive trait.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (unseen), the description does not mention the return type or structure. For a tool that retrieves MIDI notes, the agent lacks information about what 'notes' entails (e.g., pitch, velocity, timing). The description feels incomplete for the task complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents both parameters as 0-based indices, adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides titles. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable, though it could be more detailed (e.g., range of valid indices).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all MIDI notes in a clip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_clip_info (clip metadata) and set/add/remove_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., clip must be a MIDI clip) or when to choose get_clip_notes over other note-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. While it describes the basic function, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance implications, authorization needs, or output format. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more informative about the scope (e.g., 'all tracks in the session'). However, it efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes 'tracks' (e.g., does it include the master track or return tracks?). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'total number of tracks', indicating it returns a count. However, it does not specify whether it includes all types of tracks (audio, MIDI, return, master) which could lead to ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_track_names or get_track_info. The description does not mention any context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'brings it into view for editing' which implies UI effect, but lacks details on side effects like track activation or selection state changes. Adds some value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the essential information. Highly concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover prerequisites (e.g., valid indices), error cases, or behavior when selection fails. Incomplete for a tool with minimal schema descriptions and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain the meaning of track_index or device_index beyond their names. The parameters are somewhat self-evident, but the description should elaborate for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Select a device on a track' and explains the effect 'brings it into view for editing', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device_list or set_device_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_device_list for browsing or set_device_parameter for editing. Missing context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It discloses the constraint that values must match parameter count and order, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or return value. For a mutation tool without annotations, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on how to determine parameter count or order, error handling, and output. For a bulk operation, more depth is needed to ensure correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'values' array must match count and order, but does not clarify what track_index, device_index, or the individual elements of values represent. The parameter meaning is largely unexplored.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets all device parameters at once, distinguishing it from siblings like set_device_parameter which sets a single parameter. The verb 'Set' and resource 'all device parameters' is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to set all parameters simultaneously, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the action is destructive, requires permissions, or affects playback state, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a mapping table. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and has an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context about error conditions, parameter ranges, or expected behavior when called. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for the 'mode' parameter by listing its possible values. However, 'track_index' and 'clip_index' remain unexplained beyond their schema types, so the description only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the clip launch mode and provides a mapping of integer values to modes (Trigger, Gate, Toggle, Repeat), distinguishing it from other clip-related sibling tools like set_clip_looping or set_clip_muted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples of typical usage scenarios provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, side effects, permission requirements). The description only covers the parameter mapping, not the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence defining the action followed by essential parameter mapping. No extraneous content, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description provides the core mapping, it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and explanation of all parameters. For a tool with 3 required params and an output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for the quantization aspect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the quantization parameter via the integer mapping, but fails to explain the other two required parameters (clip_index and track_index). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and resource 'clip launch quantization' and provides a direct mapping of integer values to quantization options, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from related tools like set_clip_trigger_quantization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives such as set_clip_trigger_quantization. Missing context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only provides the range. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or how setting the groove amount affects playback or other settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the range. Every word is necessary and no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to explain what 'groove amount' means or its effect, which would help an AI agent understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the range (0.0 to 1.0) to the 'amount' parameter, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain what the groove amount does (e.g., introduce swing), leaving its functional meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('global groove amount'), including the valid range (0.0 to 1.0). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that deal with tempo, playback, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, without context on its appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies that bpm=0 means 'no tempo change' but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it overrides global tempo, or if it affects currently playing scenes. Significant gaps in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two-line description plus a compact parameter list. Front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate but missing details like return value, prerequisites (e.g., scene existence), or error conditions. Not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning by noting scene_index is 0-based and bpm=0 indicates no tempo change. However, it doesn't specify allowed BPM range or what 'scene index' refers to in the context of the application.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the tempo for a specific scene (scene-based tempo changes).' The verb 'set' and resource 'scene tempo' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'set_tempo' which likely sets global tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'set_tempo' or 'tap_tempo'. The description only implies it's for scene-specific changes but doesn't provide concrete scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only says 'select'. It does not explain side effects, permissions, or whether selection triggers any action. With zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded key information. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool, the description is partially complete but misses constraints like valid index range or behavior when index is out of bounds. Output schema exists but is not leveraged in description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds '0-based' to clarify the index parameter. This adds minimal value beyond the schema; more detail like valid range would improve it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Select a scene by index' using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_selected_scene' and 'fire_scene' by focusing on selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fire_scene' or 'get_selected_scene'. Does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions 'brings it into view' hinting at a visual side effect, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence explaining purpose and parameter, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple selection tool, but lacks description of output (though output schema exists) and could include more detail like 'selects existing track' or constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description mentions 'track_index (0-based)', adding clarity about zero-based indexing beyond the schema's integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'select' and resource 'track by index', and adds context 'brings it into view', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_selected_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as set_selected_scene or get_selected_track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and parameters, with no disclosure of constraints (e.g., what happens if track is not a group) or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence and parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits important context like the requirement that the track be a group track and the effect of folding/unfolding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description adds that track_index is 0-based, providing useful context beyond the schema's integer type. However, 'folded (bool)' only restates the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (fold/unfold) and the target (group track). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover volume, mute, etc. However, it does not explicitly clarify that it only works on group tracks, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. Since no sibling tool provides fold functionality, the need for guidance is lower, but it could mention that it only applies to group tracks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Uses AbletonOSC directly' and does not mention safety (e.g., destructive nature, prerequisites, or error handling), leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word adds utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and a two-parameter schema with 0% coverage, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values, error states, or preconditions, making it incomplete for an agent to use robustly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It gives two examples for 'routing_type' but no full list or constraints, leaving the agent to guess valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set track input routing type' with specific examples ('Ext. In', 'No Input'), and the name distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'set_track_output_routing'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting input routing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_track_routing_info' or 'set_track_output_routing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral context beyond the operation. It does not disclose effects on playback, interaction with other tracks, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists parameters in a clear format. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is moderately complete. However, it omits any context about reversibility, prerequisites, or interaction with mute/arm states.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the input schema parameters: it specifies track_index as 0-based and maps soloed boolean values to actions (True to solo, False to unsolo). With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Solo or unsolo') and the resource ('a track'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_mute, set_track_arm, etc., which handle different track properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for soloing, or when to use other track-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only describes syntax and examples, lacking details on side effects, permissions, destructiveness, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: four lines with the syntax and three key examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no explanation of return values, constraints (e.g., valid scene numbers), or how it differs from sibling tools. Misses opportunity to fully contextualize.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'action' parameter has 0% schema coverage, but the description explains the required syntax (SCENE_NUMBER/ACTION) and gives concrete examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes a ClyphX Pro scene action with a specific syntax, and lists common actions. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fire_scene or set_scene_name by noting it is for general custom actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Examples are given for common actions (play, name, color), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs dedicated scene tools like fire_scene or set_scene_name. The syntax implies a generic action, but no when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only mentions the insert position but does not disclose side effects (e.g., track selection, existing tracks) or requirements (e.g., permissions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is clear, though it could be condensed into a single sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials but lacks context about the created track's default state or further details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the meaning of the 'index' parameter ('Position to insert (-1 = end)') which is not present in the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new audio track, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_return_track by specifying 'audio'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_midi_track or create_return_track. No context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clips, undo behavior), permissions, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear first sentence followed by a parameter list. It earns its place by providing parameter details missing from the schema. Minor improvement: front-loading the parameter names into the narrative could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface (3 params) and an output schema exists but is not described. The description explains creation but omits what happens if the slot is occupied, whether the operation is undoable, or any return values. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema: track_index and clip_index are explained as 0-based, and length is documented as 'Clip length in beats' with a default of 4.0 representing 1 bar in 4/4. This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it could include constraints like valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new empty MIDI clip in a clip slot.' It specifies the resource (MIDI clip) and the action (create). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_clip or fire_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clip slot must be empty) or provide context for typical use cases. The description only lists parameters without explaining when creation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only describes the query action but does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only), performance implications of bulk requests, or error handling. This is insufficient for confident use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and uses a clear two-part structure: a purpose sentence followed by parameter details. While it could be more structured (e.g., bulleted list), it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on error cases, response size, or pagination for bulk queries. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the exclusive end_track, the space-separated properties format, and the required prefixes (track., clip., clip_slot). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and helps the agent construct correct queries.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries bulk data about multiple tracks and clips, using strong action verbs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_track_info or get_clip_info by emphasizing bulk retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_track_info or get_clip_info. The agent must infer usage from the 'bulk data' hint, but explicit when-not or alternative tool references are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a live, read-only operation but does not disclose specifics like units (dB/RMS), range, or whether feedback is real-time. The 'visual feedback' hint suggests non-mutating behavior, but details are lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it is overly terse and could be improved by including parameter details without significant length increase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is one parameter with no schema description, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, units, or indexing, which are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (track_index), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify indexing convention (0-based or 1-based), valid range, or how to obtain the index. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get), resource (current output meter level of a track), and adds 'for visual feedback' to specify the intended use. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track_info or set_track_volume, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for visual feedback' provides a clear usage hint, indicating this is for UI display rather than audio processing. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool navigates to a cue point, which is a simple behavior. No side effects, prerequisites (e.g., need for existing cue points), or interaction with playback state are disclosed. With no annotations, this is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and lists parameter details immediately. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. However, the lack of usage guidelines and the parameter type contradiction reduce completeness. Adequate for a basic tool but with notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by stating the parameter can be either a name (string) or index (number), but this contradicts the schema which defines the parameter as type 'string'. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the actual accepted types without contradiction. The added semantics are partially helpful but inaccurate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Jump to a cue point') and the resource ('cue point') with specific differentiation from sibling tools like jump_to_prev_cue and jump_to_next_cue, which perform relative navigation. It also specifies the input types (name or index), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify that this is for absolute jumps, while siblings are for relative jumps. The agent is left to infer context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and parameter examples (e.g., -2, 0, 3) but does not disclose side effects, range limits, or whether changes are immediate. As a setter, basic behavior is implied but not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the key action and is easy to skim. No extra words, though parameter descriptions could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, all required), the description covers the essential inputs but omits context like prerequisites (clip must exist on track) or return value. An output schema exists but is not described. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool in a large sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: track_index and clip_index are 0-based, semitones is pitch shift with example values. This goes beyond the schema's bare types. However, it could specify allowed value ranges for semitones.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the pitch transposition of a clip.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('clip'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_clip_gain or set_clip_muted by focusing on pitch transposition. The parameter list reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_clip_pitch_fine). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist) or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the set is instantaneous, required permissions, value range enforcement, or return value behavior. The output schema exists but is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose sentence, a contextual remark, and a bullet list of parameter definitions. No redundant text, though the list could be more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter meanings but omits return value details, error conditions, and the need for the parameter index to be obtained from get_device_parameters. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'track index (0-based)') and notes the typical value range (0.0–1.0). It also references get_device_parameters for finding parameter_index. However, it does not explain how to determine the valid value range per parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a device parameter value' and provides specific examples (filter frequency, reverb dry/wet, compressor threshold), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_device_parameter_value (getter) or ramp_parameter (gradual change).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as ramp_parameter or set_device_enabled. The description implies usage through examples but lacks direct instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lacks information about side effects (e.g., if loop is off), prerequisites, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the action itself is stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. No filler words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with one parameter and an output schema (though not detailed), the description is minimally adequate but could mention typical range or effect on playback. It lacks depth for edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds the unit 'beats' to the parameter 'start_beats', but does not explain expected range, format, or relationship to other parameters. The schema's required flag is already visible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('set'), the resource ('arrangement loop start position'), and the unit ('beats'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_loop' and 'set_clip_loop_start' by specifying 'arrangement'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adjusting the arrangement loop start, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the distinction from clip loop start is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the action but doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or error handling. For a simple stop operation, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter detail. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description leaves out important context like valid track index range or whether the action is reversible. With one parameter and a simple action, it is moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds '0-based' hint for track_index but does not explain the parameter's role or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Stop all clips on a specific track.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'stop_clip' (single clip) and 'stop_all_clips' (all tracks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks context like 'Use this instead of stop_clip to stop multiple clips at once.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 lists actions that include destructive operations (e.g., CLIP DEL) and modifications, but does not detail side effects, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), or the exact effect on the clip state. The first sentence clarifies it applies to the playing/selected clip, offering some transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph with a clear list of actions, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While concise, it could be slightly more structured with a brief note on parameter formatting, but overall it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (many possible actions) and a simple schema (2 params, no enums), the description covers the range of actions but omits details on output schema (exists but not described), error handling, or exact parameter syntax. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for precise invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists action examples but does not explain the 'track' parameter (e.g., index numbering, valid range) or the exact syntax for the 'action' string (e.g., case sensitivity, required 'CLIP ' prefix). The parameter meaning is partially inferred but not explicitly defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool executes a ClyphX Pro clip action on the playing/selected clip of a track, providing a specific verb and resource. It lists 23 common actions, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that handle other aspects like tempo, playback, or track management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying clips via listed actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fire_clip, set_clip_name, or set_clip_looping. No 'when not to use' or contrast with sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only states that the tool creates a return track, with no details on side effects, required permissions, or interactions with other tracks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-phrased sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not relate it to sibling tools or explain when to choose this over other track creation tools. It is minimally adequate but lacks comparative context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Create a new return track') and provides a concrete example of its use ('for reverb or delay sends'), making the tool's purpose very specific and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_audio_track, clyphx_create_return_track). No context on prerequisites or scenarios where it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes a track but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., impact on clips, undo behavior, confirmation). For a destructive action, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only one sentence. It wastes no words and includes the essential parameter detail. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one integer parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the output (though output schema exists), but that is not critical. Given the tool's simplicity, it is complete enough but could mention confirmation or undo behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'track_index' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), but the tool description clarifies it is 0-based. This adds meaningful context that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a track by index', using a specific verb (Delete) and resource (track). The indexing detail is provided, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_clip, delete_scene), which is important given many sibling tools. The description simply states what it does without context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Duplicate a scene' without explaining what happens to the new scene (e.g., naming, position, if it becomes selected). No side effects or details are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, directly front-loading the purpose. Every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what the duplicated scene inherits (content, name, color) and its resulting index, which could be inferred but is not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly notes the parameter 'scene_index (0-based)', adding crucial indexing context beyond the schema's generic 'integer' type. This significantly aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Duplicate a scene', which directly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_scene' and 'delete_scene' by using the verb 'duplicate'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_scene' or 'fire_scene'. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions only the returned data and parameters but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The phrase 'get' implies safety, but lacking explicit confirmation is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by two succinct parameter definitions. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context, not shown), the description does not need to spell out return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameters. Could be improved by mentioning what happens if the clip or track doesn't exist, but overall adequate for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter as '0-based' index. This clarifies the expected indexing beyond the schema's simple labels. However, it does not provide constraints like allowed ranges or error conditions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Get detailed info about a clip' and lists specific properties (name, length, playing state, gain, pitch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track_info or set_clip_* operations, though it could more explicitly contrast with other getters like get_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied: when you need general clip details. Lacks when-not-to-use or references to related tools (e.g., has_clip for checking existence, get_clip_notes for note data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets all cue points' but does not mention that it is non-destructive, any rate limits, or performance implications. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description could still mention context like session must be open or that it returns a list. Given the numerous sibling tools, a bit more context (e.g., 'Use get_cue_points to inspect all cue points') would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('name + time pairs'), which goes beyond the empty input schema. This helps the agent understand what the tool provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all cue points in the session (name + time pairs)' clearly states the action (Get), object (cue points), scope (all in session), and content (name + time pairs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jump_to_cue_point or set_or_delete_cue which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jump_to_cue_point or set_or_delete_cue. The description only states what it does without providing context on prerequisites or usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it gets the index but does not disclose behavior when no track is selected (e.g., returns -1 or null) or whether the tool is read-only. This omission limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. No wasteful words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (though not displayed), the description is mostly adequate but lacks mention of the return type (index as integer) or edge cases. It could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantic value about parameters, but the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools since the schema trivially covers all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('get') and resource ('index of the currently selected track'), which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like set_selected_track (which sets) and get_track_names (which lists names).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_track_names, get_selected_scene, get_track_info), it fails to mention that this is for retrieving the index, not other track properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action ('jump') without explaining whether the navigation wraps around, what happens if no previous cue exists, or the effect on playback state. The minimal description omits critical behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and a likely trivial output schema (not shown), the description is adequate for a simple navigation action. However, it lacks details about expected behavior in edge cases (e.g., no previous cue) and does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a fully autonomous agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (as no parameters are defined). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but since there is nothing to document, baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Jump to the previous cue point' uses a specific verb ('Jump') and clearly identifies the target resource ('previous cue point'). Among sibling tools like jump_to_next_cue and jump_to_cue_point, this description uniquely specifies backward navigation, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jump_to_cue_point or get_cue_points. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., behavior when at the first cue point) or prerequisites (e.g., existence of cue points). This lack of context leaves the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the primary effect (mute/unmute) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether this affects playback, if it resets any parameters, or error handling like invalid indices).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose and a clear parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the core functionality. However, given the complex domain (Ableton Live) and many sibling tools, it lacks context about clip existence, index bounds, or return values (though output schema exists). It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter explanations are given for all three required parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema property names. For example, 'track_index: The track index (0-based)' clarifies the range and type. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable, though it could mention how to obtain these indices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it mutes or unmutes a clip, directly matching the tool name 'set_clip_muted'. The verb 'Mute or unmute' is specific and resource-oriented, and there are no sibling tools that perform the same action (e.g., stop_clip, set_track_mute are different).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_clip or set_track_mute. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., the clip must exist, indices must be valid) or context when muting is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the basic action but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or impact on playback or other loop settings. For a simple toggle, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short at one sentence, with no wasted words. However, it redundantly lists parameter info already in the schema. For such a simple tool, brevity is a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single boolean parameter), the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks context on return values, error cases, and dependencies on other loop settings. Without annotations, more detail would be helpful for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% parameter coverage but 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'enabled (bool),' which restates the schema type without explaining the semantic meaning (e.g., true enables the loop, false disables it). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable the arrangement loop,' which accurately names the verb (enable/disable) and the resource (arrangement loop). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_loop_start or set_loop_length that modify loop boundaries rather than the loop's active state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear functional statement but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_loop_start, set_loop_length) or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks detail on behavioral traits. For example, it does not disclose whether the song must be playing, if playback state changes, or if the seek is absolute. Without annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The parameter description is integrated efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple seek tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but omits behavior details like impact on playback or looping.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by explaining 'Position in beats from the start', providing context beyond the schema's bare 'number' type. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. However, it does not specify constraints like non-negative values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Jump') and resource ('position in the song'). It distinguishes from siblings like playback controls and tempo settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jump_to_cue_point or start_playback. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 fails to mention any side effects, range constraints, or whether changes are immediate. Only the basic action is stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using two sentences with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the overall purpose, the second explains the parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (even if not detailed), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return behavior or any further context, which would be helpful for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'bpm' is explained with unit ('beats per minute') and examples (90.0, 122.0), adding value beyond the schema which has no description. This clarifies the expected format and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the tempo of the Ableton session', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_tempo' (read) and 'tap_tempo' (different operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_scene_tempo' for per-scene tempo adjustments. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool sets the time signature, omitting details like side effects, required permissions, or effect on playback. Behavioral transparency is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a two-line bullet list. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and parameters. However, it lacks context about constraints (e.g., valid value ranges) or how the tool fits into the broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear examples and explanations (numerator = top number, denominator = bottom number) that go beyond the schema's type and title. It effectively clarifies parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Set the time signature' with clear parameter examples (e.g., 4 for 4/4). It is distinct from sibling tools like set_tempo, as no other tool modifies time signature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when or when not to use this tool, nor are any alternatives mentioned. The description implies its purpose but lacks contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states the basic action without discussing side effects, error handling (e.g., invalid track index), or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose, two lines for parameters. No redundant information, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple action and two parameters, the description covers the essentials. An output schema exists but is not mentioned, which is acceptable per rules. However, lacks behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites, making it barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal clarification: track_index is 0-based, armed True/False maps to arm/disarm. This adds value beyond the schema, but with only two parameters, it's adequate but not exceptional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (arm/disarm) and the resource (track) with a specific purpose (for recording). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_solo, which serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is clear, and the sibling names imply distinct functionality. Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. For example, whether muting affects playback immediately or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded: one imperative sentence then parameter list. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description is adequate but lacks any context about impact on playback or mix. Output schema exists but not described; however, return values are not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It explains track_index is 0-based and muted is a toggle, adding meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Mute or unmute a track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_solo, set_track_arm, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_solo or set_track_arm. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states the action without side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. Lacks depth for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences with a bullet list. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema but description doesn't mention return. With many sibling stop tools, more context on scope (single clip vs slot vs track vs all) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning by noting that track_index and clip_index are 0-based, which is absent from schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Stop a playing clip' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like stop_all_clips and stop_track_clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., stop_clip_slot, stop_track_clips). Does not mention prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions only that it sends a MIDI message, omitting side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data), authorization needs (e.g., requires ClyphX Pro running), or constraints like rate limits. This lack of context could lead to misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does and its parameters, but lacks broader context such as where the MIDI message is sent (e.g., selected track, virtual port) or whether additional setup is needed. Despite having an output schema (not shown), the absence of context on the tool's effect in the system makes it moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: channel range (1-16), msg_type values ('NOTE' or 'CC'), data1 as note/CC number, and data2 as velocity/value with default 0. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema types and names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a MIDI message via ClyphX Pro, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clyphx_global or clyphx_scene by focusing on raw MIDI output, a unique functionality among the many ClyphX tools listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With nearly 100 sibling tools covering various functions, the description does not indicate scenarios (e.g., when you need to send arbitrary MIDI vs. using clyphx_action) or state prerequisites, making it hard for an AI to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Delete a clip', which implies destruction, but omits details like whether deletion is permanent, if the clip must exist, or what happens during playback. No additional behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. The main action is stated first, and the parameter list is clear. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential action. However, it lacks context on error cases (e.g., clip not found), side effects, or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully explains the parameters. It specifies that both indices are 0-based and clearly associates track_index with track number and clip_index with clip slot, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and resource 'clip from a clip slot'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stop_clip, fire_clip, create_clip, etc., which perform different clip operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., stop_clip, duplicate_clip_to). No explicit when-not or contextual clues are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (ranges, quantization) but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications. Adequate for a read-only tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with two short sentences. It gets straight to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema presumably documents return values, the description is complete enough for this simple query tool. It covers the key purpose and usage context, leaving minimal gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameters track_index and device_index. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves all parameters with min/max ranges and quantization status. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('parameter range'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_device_parameters or get_device_parameter_value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it's essential for understanding valid value ranges for automation, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_device_parameters, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention consequences of loading (e.g., replaces existing device?), failure modes, permissions, or that it relies on ClyphX Pro being installed. The scope of effects is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the core action. However, a structured list for parameters would improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. Missing context includes prerequisites (ClyphX Pro), error handling, and whether it works on all track types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining track_number uses 1-based indexing and device_name with concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Load') and the resource ('Ableton device onto a track') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it uses ClyphX Pro for a capability that AbletonOSC alone cannot do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for loading devices but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clyphx_browser_load' or 'select_device'. No exclusions or recommended contexts are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing any side effects, prerequisites, safety info, or error conditions. For a simple redo action, this is minimal but insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavior beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 7 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the verb and target. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the trivial nature of the action, the description is essentially complete. An output schema exists (not shown) to document return values. Slightly higher score justified because additional context about error states or prerequisites is not critical for such a basic operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist in schema, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Baseline is 3 according to rule. Description adds no param info, which is acceptable as none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Redo'), the target ('the last undone action'), and context ('in Ableton'). It differentiates from the sibling 'undo' tool by implying it is the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after an undo but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., an undone action must exist). No guidance on exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes notes and defaults to removing all notes, but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, if it affects automation, or any permission requirements. The behavior is clear but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core use case and default behavior, but does not explain parameter ranges, error conditions, or return values. The output schema exists but isn't leveraged for additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pitch/time range' but does not explain the specific parameters (time_start, time_span, pitch_start, pitch_span), their units, or how the defaults work. The description adds minimal value to understanding the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove MIDI notes'), the resource ('clip'), and the scope ('within a pitch/time range'). It also explicitly mentions the default behavior ('removes ALL notes') and how to target specific notes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_clip_notes and set_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides basic guidance on usage ('Specify ranges to target specific notes') and implies when to use ranges, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like set_clip_notes or add_clip_notes, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need to preserve notes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Set the color of a clip' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions needed, or constraints on the color index. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the action. It consists of one sentence for purpose and a list of parameters with clear context. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description covers the essential information: what it does and the parameters. An output schema exists, so the return value is not needed in the description. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the color index must be valid and what happens if it isn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by stating '0-based' for track_index and clip_index and noting that color is from the 'Ableton color palette'. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'color of a clip', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_color and set_scene_color. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action. There is no mention of side effects, error handling (e.g., invalid track index), or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by a clear, structured parameter list. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks any error or edge-case information. It does not explain what happens if the track_index is out of range or if the color is invalid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds critical meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that track_index is 0-based and color is an index in the Ableton color palette (0-69). The schema only defines integer types, so this is essential.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Set track color.' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_scene_color or set_clip_color, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set track color vs. clip color). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions parameter ranges but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing send levels), error conditions (e.g., invalid send index), or confirm that the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus a short list), but the parameter list is inline rather than structured. No unnecessary information, but could be slightly better organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and existence of an output schema (context confirms), the description covers the essential action. However, it omits context like error handling or default behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: track_index (0-based), send_index (0=Send A), and value (0.0-1.0). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets a track's send level, with an example (reverb/delay send). It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (track's send), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for setting send levels but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ramp_send for gradual changes) or specify any prerequisites (e.g., existence of the send).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavior beyond the basic action. It does not explain what happens to the playback position, whether it stops immediately, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema. The description covers the core action adequately, though it could state if it resets the playback position. Still, it's complete for a basic stop command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Stop' and resource 'playing the Ableton session', distinguishing it from siblings like start_playback and continue_playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_all_clips or pause. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing clips, what happens if no clips are playing, or whether it creates a new scene at a specific position).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word is meaningful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as what the 'new scene' is named or where it is inserted, and how the tool behaves edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. Per calibration, 0 parameters have a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Capture the currently playing clips into a new scene.' It uses a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('currently playing clips', 'new scene'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_scene' or 'fire_scene'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to snapshot currently playing clips into a new scene), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the output is a temp JSON file, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, lacks details on file location, lifecycle, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Efficiently communicates the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool exporting complex song structure with many components, the description is brief. It doesn't explain how the temp file is handled or accessed. However, the output schema likely covers return format, and the lack of parameters simplifies context. Adequate but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it exports the full song structure (tracks, clips, devices, parameters) to a temporary JSON file, using specific verb 'Export' and resource. Distinguishes from all sibling tools, which are primarily getters/setters for individual elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's the only export tool, the description does not clarify usage context (e.g., for backup, analysis, or transfer) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the ramp blocks execution, is undoable, or requires permissions. The existence of an output schema is noted but not described, leaving the return value ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value and the structure front-loads the key action. No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and gives usage examples, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., real-time vs. scheduled, interruptibility, prerequisites like device existence). The output schema is not described, though its presence reduces the need for return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing all parameters with clear, one-line explanations (e.g., 'track_index: 0-based'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, though some parameters like bpm and steps_per_beat have defaults explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool smoothly ramps a device parameter over beats with examples like filter sweeps and reverb builds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_device_parameter (immediate) and ramp_volume (volume-specific).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives usage examples but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_device_parameter or ramp_volume. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool, relying on the user to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds a little value by specifying the gain range (0.0 to 1.0) beyond the schema's bare type, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether changes are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, though listing parameters inline duplicates schema structure slightly; it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but the description lacks context about the operation's impact (e.g., immediate audio effect, undoability). Adequate for a simple setter but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all three parameters with crucial semantics: index offsets (0-based) and gain range, which the schema omits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the gain of a clip' using a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like set_clip_muted or set_clip_pitch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adjusting clip volume via set_track_volume), nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that notes are replaced, which is a key behavior. However, it does not describe effects on other clip properties, error scenarios, or permissions, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently includes all parameter details and an example without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, the description covers basic parameter semantics but lacks context on output, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), and potential side effects. Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing parameter names, types, and providing an example for 'notes' with specific keys (pitch, start_time, etc.). This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it could document constraints (e.g., pitch range).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'MIDI notes in a clip', and explicitly notes it replaces existing notes, distinguishing it from similar tools like add_clip_notes and remove_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_clip_notes or remove_clip_notes. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, permission needs, or behavior with automation. Minimal disclosure beyond the operation itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with a clear list of parameters. Front-loaded with the action. Slightly redundant 'Parameters:' header, but overall efficient and no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameter-setting tool with output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter details, though missing context like return values or interaction with automation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates. It explains track_index as 0-based and pan range from -1.0 to 1.0, adding clarity beyond the schema's property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool sets track panning position, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_volume by explicitly mentioning 'panning'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does 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 like set_track_volume or set_track_balance. The description implies use for panning but does not provide when/when-not criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions action types without detailing side effects, permissions, or destructive behavior (e.g., DEL action). Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one-line summary followed by a short list of examples. Every sentence is useful and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and presence of output schema, the description adequately explains how to construct the action string. Could mention return value or error handling, but output schema likely covers it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one undocumented parameter 'action'. Description adds significant value by providing format and concrete examples (e.g., 'SNAP name STORE'), compensating for 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes a ClyphX Pro snap action and provides common actions like STORE, RECALL, DEL. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on snapshot operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists common actions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is idempotent, what happens if already playing, or any prerequisites (e.g., session must be stopped). This is a significant gap for a simple control action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly conveys the action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple action, the output schema exists, and there are no parameters, the description is adequate. However, it could be slightly improved by noting the expected state (e.g., 'starts playback if stopped, does nothing if already playing').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but it is not needed. Per guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'continue' and the resource 'playback', specifying it resumes from the current position. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like start_playback, which likely plays from the beginning or a different point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after stopping to resume, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. start_playback or other variants. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether creation modifies the session immediately, any prerequisites, or return value. The output schema exists but is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the tool's purpose, second explains the sole parameter. No unnecessary words, efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks context about side effects or what the return value represents. Still, the low complexity and presence of output schema mitigate this omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no description in schema), and the description adds meaning to the 'index' parameter: 'Position to insert (-1 = end)'. This clarifies the parameter's semantic beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new MIDI track.' using a specific verb (Create) and resource (MIDI track). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_audio_track and create_return_track by specifying the track type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the index parameter meaning but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_audio_track or create_return_track. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only states it 'launches all clips,' but does not mention side effects like stopping other clips, error handling for invalid index, or any required conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists parameter. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Basic behavior covered, but missing mention of prerequisites (scene must exist) or error cases. For a simple tool, mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. Description adds '0-based' which is crucial for correct usage. Could be improved with valid range, but adequately compensates for schema's lack of description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Fire (trigger)' and resource 'scene', explaining it launches all clips in the scene's row. Distinguishes from siblings like fire_clip and fire_selected_scene by specifying scene_index parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied (trigger a specific scene by index), but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like fire_selected_scene. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'get the current value' without disclosing return format, error behavior, or whether it is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a bullet list for parameters. No redundant information, and every element serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It explains the three indices and their origin. Minor omission: it doesn't confirm the return value type, but that may be in the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds crucial context: indices are 0-based and parameter_index should come from get_device_parameters. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current value of a specific device parameter', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_device_parameter (write) and get_device_parameters (list all parameters).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. It is implied for retrieving a parameter value, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or comparison with get_device_parameter_display.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explains the operation is a read, returning an index. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or side effects, but for a simple getter it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence with no redundancy. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and existence of output schema, description is sufficiently complete. Could mention return format but not necessary for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 3 applies; description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'index of the currently selected scene'. No ambiguity; clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_num_scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. While the tool is straightforward, the description lacks context for choosing it over other scene-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it does without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no extraneous information; essential details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meanings adequately. Minor omissions like error handling are not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the 0-based index and state values (0=IN, 1=AUTO, 2=OFF), adding meaning beyond the raw integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set track monitoring state.' and provides value mappings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or alternatives, but the simple nature of the tool does not necessitate elaborate context. A neutral score is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it tests and verifies, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or return format. For a simple test tool, more detail on potential outcomes would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple connectivity test with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could explain what a successful test implies or what to do on failure. Still, it covers the essential purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds no param info, which is acceptable as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'test' and resource 'connectivity to AbletonOSC and ClyphX Pro'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are all about specific operations (tempo, playback, tracks, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied that this is a diagnostic tool to be used before other operations, but no explicit when or when-not guidance. No alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention traits like multiple undo support, behavior after redo, or what happens when the undo stack is empty. This is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand its core function. However, additional details about the scope of the undo (e.g., per-track or global) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, indicating adequate handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Undo the last action') and the resource ('in Ableton'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'redo' by using the opposite verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like redo) or when not to use it. The usage is implied by the common understanding of undo, but the description lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the sequential loading with delays and ClyphX indexing, but doesn't disclose side effects like whether effects are appended or replaced, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences plus parameter list, front-loading the purpose without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers core behavior and parameters but omits mentions of output schema, error handling, and prerequisites like track existence. It could better differentiate from similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to all three parameters: track_number (1-based, ClyphX indexing), effects (list with example), and delay_between (default 0.5). It provides context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads multiple effects onto a track sequentially via ClyphX Pro, specifying the resource (track) and action (load effects). It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_device' which loads a single device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that each effect load requires a delay, implying when to use delays, but it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'load_device' or 'clyphx_device_action'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, return value, or whether the operation is destructive, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly concise for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and has zero parameters, the description does not mention what the output contains. An output schema exists but is not referenced. Complete enough for trivial cases but not fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; baseline 4 applies as per rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fire') and the resource ('currently selected scene'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'fire_scene' which requires a specific scene argument.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when you want to launch the selected scene), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Siblings like 'fire_scene' are differentiated by the lack of parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention idempotency, return format, or side effects. Minimal but adequate for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It precisely communicates the tool's function without excess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose. The simplicity of the operation does not require elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are present, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable as none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the total number of scenes, with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_num_tracks which operate on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description merely states what it does without usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the type of info returned but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The output schema exists, but the description could still be more precise about scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without filler. It is well-suited for quick scanning by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, exists output schema), the description is complete enough. It names specific examples of returned info and the output schema fills in the full structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive session info like tempo and track count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tempo or get_num_tracks which target specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for a broad overview by saying 'comprehensive info', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over the many more specific sibling tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it only discloses value mappings but omits behavioral traits such as whether it applies to the selected clip, whether it is instantaneous, or if it has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with a clear list format; no extraneous words, efficient and well-front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool and presence of output schema, the description covers the parameter meaning well, but it does not specify which clip the quantization applies to (e.g., selected clip), which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the meaning of the 'value' parameter with explicit mapping, adding critical semantics beyond the raw integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (Set) and the resource (clip trigger quantization), and provides a mapping of integer values to bar lengths, distinguishing it from other clip-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for setting trigger quantization but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives like set_clip_launch_quantization, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the volume scale (0.0 silence, 0.85 0dB, 1.0 max), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overriding automation, immediate application, reversibility). The behavioral description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a parameter list. Every word provides value. No redundant phrases or jargon. It is well-structured with clear parameter definitions, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of behavioral context (e.g., whether the change is persistent, affects playback, or requires track to exist). The description is complete enough for a straightforward setter but omits potential error conditions or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for parameters, so the tool description adds critical meaning: track_index is 0-based, and volume has a specific scale with examples. This goes beyond the schema's type definitions. The explanation is clear and actionable, though it could include more detail on edge cases (e.g., negative values).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set track volume' with explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_pan, set_track_solo, etc., by focusing specifically on volume. The parameter explanations (0-based index, volume scale) further clarify the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_track_pan, set_track_mute). Usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no contextual hints or exclusions are given. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only lists parameter ranges. It does not disclose behavior on invalid inputs (e.g., out-of-range color), atomicity, or permission requirements. While the parameter constraints are useful, key behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear parameter list. Every part is relevant, though a brief note on batch nature would be nice. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, batch operation) and the presence of many sibling individual setters, the description covers the essential parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is less critical. However, it lacks a usage note against individual setters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying valid ranges (e.g., color 0-69, volume 0-127, mute/arm 'ON'/'OFF'). This goes beyond the bare schema and helps agents understand constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set multiple track properties at once.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from individual property setters like set_track_volume, set_track_mute, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting multiple properties simultaneously but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual setters or mention any limitations. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It reveals the additive nature and non-destructive behavior, which is key. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist and be MIDI), or error handling, leaving some 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose and key differentiator, second lists parameter details. No fluff, information is front-loaded and efficiently conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools like set_clip_notes and remove_clip_notes, the description covers the essential behavior and differentiator. It lacks details on return values (but output schema exists) and error conditions, but overall is sufficient for correct tool selection and usage in most contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'notes' parameter structure (list of dicts with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute), but does not describe 'clip_index' or 'track_index', which are self-explanatory but still undocumented. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds MIDI notes to a clip and explicitly distinguishes it from set_clip_notes by noting it does not delete existing notes. Verb 'add' and resource 'clip notes' are specific and leave no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance by contrasting with set_clip_notes ('does NOT delete existing notes, unlike set_clip_notes'), helping the agent decide which tool to use. It does not cover other alternatives or exclusions, but the single distinction is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool captures recently played MIDI notes and creates a new clip, but does not describe side effects, limitations (e.g., note count, transport state requirements), or whether it overwrites existing clips. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word adds value. No redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and a clear purpose, the description is fairly complete. It indicates the feature's version dependence and the basic action. Some may desire more context about prerequisites or behavior, but the presence of an output schema (not shown) may cover return values. Hence slightly above adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Following the baseline rule for 0 parameters (score 4), no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Capture'), identifies the resource ('recently played MIDI notes'), and states the outcome ('into a new clip'). It also specifies the Live version requirement, which helps clarify scope. This clearly differentiates from siblings like 'capture_and_insert_scene' or 'create_clip'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('recently played MIDI notes') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'capture_and_insert_scene' or 'set_clip_notes'). No direct guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It explains the spike and mute actions but does not clarify if send levels reset or if the mute is permanent. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences plus a concise parameter list. All information is front-loaded and no extraneous words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. It could mention prerequisites or result behavior, but overall is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all three parameters with clear explanations and default values, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It adds meaning beyond the schema's titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool executes a 'drop' by spiking reverb/delay sends and muting tracks, which is a specific action. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'set_track_mute' or 'set_track_send' by being a composite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it's for creating dramatic transitions, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns device names and indices but omits details like ordering, error handling, or behavior on invalid track indices. Adequate for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and a brief parameter note. Every sentence adds essential information with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single parameter and the mention of an output schema (context indicates it exists), the description is sufficiently complete for a device listing tool. It explains the return format (names and indices) without needing further detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's addition of '0-based' adds some value, but it doesn't explain valid ranges or behavior for invalid indices. The parameter is simple, so minimal compensation is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all devices (effects/instruments) on a track,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_device_parameters' by focusing on device listing rather than parameter manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the return value is for use with parameter tools, implying when to use this tool—before parameter operations. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear for a simple listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'smoothly ramp' but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it is blocking, modifies automation, or handles out-of-range indices. Some transparency is present (time-based via beats/bpm) but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and efficiently covers use cases. The parameter list is clear, though the 'Parameters:' line is slightly redundant. Overall minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose and parameter details well. It does not explain the return value (output schema exists) or edge cases, but these are less critical. The description is largely complete for a straightforward ramp tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter's meaning (track_index 0-based, send_index mapping to Send A/B, value ranges 0.0-1.0, defaults for bpm and steps_per_beat) that are not in the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Smoothly ramp a track's send level over a specified number of beats' and provides use cases ('Used for reverb/delay build-ups and decay'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ramp_volume and ramp_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('reverb/delay build-ups and decay') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ramp_volume or ramp_parameter, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the ramp concept but omits details like whether it overwrites existing automation, what happens if start_volume equals end_volume, and the exact role of steps_per_beat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is efficient, though it somewhat duplicates schema fields; the added details warrant the length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers basic usage, it lacks details on output (despite an output schema), interaction with existing track state, and precise interpolation behavior. More depth would improve completeness for this gradual automation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides ranges for start and end volumes and defaults for bpm and steps_per_beat, compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, it could clarify steps_per_beat more thoroughly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool ramps track volume smoothly over beats, specifying usage like fade-ins and fade-outs. This distinguishes it from instant volume tools like set_track_volume and generic ramp_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions use cases (fade-ins, fade-outs, dynamic changes) but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like set_track_volume for instant adjustments, nor compare with siblings ramp_parameter or ramp_send.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for repeated calls but fails to specify key behaviors such as timeout, reset conditions, or immediate effect on playback. This leaves significant ambiguity about how the tool accumulates taps and sets the tempo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core functionality in a single sentence, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks guidance on the expected tap interval or debounce behavior, which would be helpful for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'set tempo by tap timing' via repeated calls. The verb-resource combination is specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'set_tempo' (direct setting) and 'get_tempo' (read-only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage pattern ('call repeatedly'), which provides clear context for interactive tempo setting. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling 'set_tempo' is a natural alternative for non-interactive use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description indicates it is a read-only list operation, but lacks details on potential errors, prerequisites (e.g., valid device), or the structure of the output beyond 'indices and current values'. More context would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is included but does not add excessive verbosity. Could be slightly tighter, but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and parameters for a list operation, though edge cases and error conditions are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters: track_index as 'the track index (0-based)' and device_index as 'the device index (0-based) from get_device_list', adding useful context about origin. Constraints or valid ranges are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'all parameters of a device with their indices and current values'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_device_parameter' by stating it is used to discover parameter indices for that tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to use this tool to discover parameter indices for 'set_device_parameter', providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other uses, but the intended use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It adequately discloses that the tool reads the current BPM without side effects, though no additional behavioral traits (e.g., failure modes) are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with 12 words, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for this simple getter tool: it states the purpose, the resource, and the return value (BPM). No additional context needed given zero parameters and presence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; no parameter info needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'current tempo (BPM)', distinguishing it from 'set_tempo' which modifies tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., set_tempo). The description is minimal and does not provide exclusion criteria or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists devices and parameters (read-only), but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist), performance implications, or error handling. The output schema helps but behavioral traits like safety or state requirements are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences for the purpose and a single line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (one integer) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete for a discovery tool. It explains the input and the output scope (all devices and their parameters). It does not cover error cases like invalid track index, but for its complexity, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage (no description for the parameter), so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining 'track_index: The track index (0-based)', clarifying the indexing convention and what the parameter represents. This adds value beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists all devices on a track with their parameters, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource 'devices on a track'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_device_list' (which likely lists only device names) and 'get_device_parameters' (which requires a specific device index). The phrase 'Full device discovery for understanding what can be automated' adds further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating it is for full device discovery to understand what can be automated, implying it should be used before automation tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it lists tracks, implying a non-destructive read operation, but does not confirm safety, permissions, or side effects. More context would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences (15 words), front-loading the core functionality. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-all tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the what and why. It could briefly mention that it returns all tracks (including master track) for completeness, but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by indicating the output content (names and indices), which is beneficial beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('List all tracks') and the specific information returned ('names and indices'). This directly corresponds to the tool name and differentiates it from siblings like 'get_num_tracks' or 'get_track_names'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a use case ('building a mental model of the current session layout'), indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative tools like 'get_track_info'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes case-insensitive search, which is helpful. But it does not disclose behavior for no matches or multiple matches, and no annotations are provided. With no annotations, the description could be more thorough on behavioral specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear summary, usage hint, and parameter list. It includes examples and avoids fluff, though the parameter list could be integrated better.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains parameters and usage well. Since an output schema exists, the lack of output details is acceptable. It covers the core functionality sufficiently for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful details: explains index base (0-based) and provides examples for name_substring. This adds value beyond the schema's minimal titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds a device parameter index by searching a substring in the parameter name. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_device_parameters or set_device_parameter, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states it is useful for discovering parameter indices without manual inspection, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returned fields but lacks details on output format, errors (e.g., invalid index), or whether it's a safe read. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but transparency could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one line for purpose, one line listing parameters. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key info. Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists the kind of data returned. Missing details like error handling or constraints (e.g., track_index must be valid) but acceptable for a simple query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explicitly documenting track_index as zero-based. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is valuable. The single parameter explanation is clear and sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets detailed info about a specific track (verb+resource), listing specific properties like name, volume, mute, solo, devices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_names (just names) or get_selected_track (single track).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving comprehensive track details, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_track_names or get_track_output_meter. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the purpose but omits behavioral traits like idempotency or permissions. For a simple read check, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose, two lines for parameters. No extraneous text. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter information. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful definitions for both parameters (track_index and clip_index are 0-based), which the schema's titles do not convey. This compensates fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'clip slot', and the tool's boolean nature distinguishes it from siblings like get_clip_info or fire_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states what it does, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that this tool sets state directly (not toggle), but does not mention idempotency, return value, or any side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with key information and no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one boolean parameter and an output schema exists, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention that setting is immediate or idempotent, but overall complete for a simple setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'set session record state directly' but does not explicitly map the boolean 'enabled' to recording on/off, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool 'set session record state directly' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'trigger_session_record' by noting the difference between direct setting vs toggling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions the alternative tool 'trigger_session_record' that toggles, guiding the agent on when to use this tool (direct setting) versus the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'waits,' without detailing blocking behavior, accuracy, or side effects. While adequate for a simple tool, more transparency (e.g., whether it blocks execution) would improve score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a two-line parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core behavior and parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor room for improvement includes clarifying output or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly naming and explaining each parameter: 'beats: Number of beats to wait' and 'bpm: Current tempo (default 95).' This compensates for the zero schema description coverage, providing clear semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool waits for a specified number of beats, distinguishing itself from related tools like get_tempo or set_tempo. The verb 'wait' and resource 'beats' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it is 'useful for timing operations in a sequence of MCP tool calls,' providing context for when to use it. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or explicit alternatives, though the context from sibling tools implies its specific purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It states the effect (enable/disable) but does not mention error handling or return values. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a single sentence plus bullet-pointed parameters. Every element is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It lacks details on return value or error conditions, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: track_index and device_index are 0-based, enabled is True to enable, False to bypass. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Enable or disable a device (bypass)', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_device_parameter or load_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While no explicit when-to-use or when-not is given, the description directly indicates the purpose (bypass control). Among many sibling tools, this one is uniquely for enabling/disabling, so usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description accurately describes the action without contradictions. It does not detail effects on recording or clip states, but for a simple stop action, it is sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is maximally concise. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no complex side effects), the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does without needing additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable since there are none. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'stop' and the scope 'all playing clips in the session', distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_clip (single clip) and stop_track_clips (track-level). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to stop all playing clips, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stop_track_clips) or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or side effects is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it creates tracks, loads effects, sets properties—indicative of a write operation. However, it does not mention limitations, error conditions, or whether prior session state is affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized: a summary paragraph followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Example enhances clarity without extra length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects), the description provides nearly all necessary context. The example illustrates usage. Only minor nuance like data types for color/volume could be added, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: bpm, time_sig, and track_configs with nested fields (name, color, effects, volume, send_a) and an example, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a complete session template with tracks, effects, and settings. The verb 'Build' and resource 'session template' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_tempo or create_audio_track by being a batch operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'quickest way to set up a new session,' implying primary use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but given sibling tools, the intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool toggles metronome state, which is transparent. No side effects or contradictions noted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key action, no extra words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean toggle with output schema (not shown but exists), the description is complete. No need for return value explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly defines the parameter 'enabled' as True to turn on, False to turn off, adding meaning beyond the schema which only specifies type boolean. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool toggles the metronome (enable/disable). It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from siblings which deal with tempo, playback, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The tool is straightforward, but lacks context like prerequisites (e.g., playback state) or mention that no alternative exists. Adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not explicitly mention the potential for destructive actions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond sending a raw string. However, the list of common actions implies various behaviors (e.g., creating tracks, muting). More explicit disclosure would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: first sentence introduces purpose, then use case, then parameter details with examples, then a list of common actions. Every sentence is informative and earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a raw action tool with high complexity, the description covers parameter format, usage scenarios, and common actions. It also distinguishes from siblings. Output schema exists but is not needed given the nature of the tool. The description is complete for its context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description extensively documents the 'action_string' parameter: format (e.g., '1/LOADDEV "Auto Filter"'), chaining with semicolons, and a detailed list of common actions. This adds immense meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this is for sending raw ClyphX Pro action strings for commands not covered by specific sibling tools, with a specific verb 'Send' and resource 'ClyphX Pro action string'. It distinguishes itself by referencing 'not covered by the specific ClyphX tools below'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use this for any ClyphX command not covered by specific tools, providing common action examples and chaining format using semicolons, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ursaayush/ableton-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server