get_device_list

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.