get_transport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a reporting tool and enumerates the exact data fields returned (is_playing, record_mode, session_record, current_song_time, tempo, etc.). The verb 'Report' strongly implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the included unit for current_song_time adds useful context. It does not explicitly state side effects, but none are expected for a state query.

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 primary purpose ('Report transport/record state') followed by a concise enumeration of fields and a clear use-case sentence. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose, what it returns (via the listed fields), and when to use it. An output schema exists, so return value structure is properly documented elsewhere. Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and clear differentiation from siblings, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties to cover).

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 begins with 'Report transport/record state,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It lists the specific state fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_info and get_track_info, which report on different targets. The tool is unambiguously a read-only state query.

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 explicit use cases: 'verify a capture is running' and 'watch the playhead advance.' This gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is so distinct from the control-oriented siblings that the context is sufficient.

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