get_track_meter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and discloses the read-only nature, value range, audio-dependent behavior, and sampling recommendation. It does not cover error handling or permission requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only meter tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is appropriately sized and avoids redundancy.

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 a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'track' parameter. It does so by enumerating valid forms (integer index, 'master', 'return:N'), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic anyOf. The default value is not mentioned, but it is in the schema, so a small deduction applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource (a track's output meter) with the value range and channel breakdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting the 'track' parameter can be an integer index, 'master', or 'return:N', covering capabilities that overlap with tools like get_master_meter.

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 clear usage context: meters only move while audio plays, with actionable guidance to fire a clip/scene first and sample multiple times. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the behavioral prerequisites are well-stated.

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