get_track_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly notes that master/return tracks have no clip slots, which is a behavioral nuance beyond the basic read operation. The verb 'Get' implies no side effects, and the list of returned fields sets accurate expectations, though it doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences: the first concisely lists what the tool returns, and the second adds a crucial usage note. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects of the tool: what it does, what data it returns, and the special master/return behavior. The output schema handles return structure details. The main gap is the lack of clarification for `track_index`, which is a required parameter for complex track specification, making the description slightly incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning to the `track` parameter by showing string examples ('master', 'return:0') and explaining their special semantics. However, the `track_index` parameter is not explained at all, leaving its relationship to `track` ambiguous. Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('track info'), and enumerates the exact data returned (name, mute/solo/arm, volume/pan, clip slots, devices). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the comprehensive track-info getter, and the master/return track special-case note further clarifies scope.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use this tool, especially the special-case instructions for inspecting master and return tracks. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this as the go-to tool for track details.

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