get_automation

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is lighter, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: default max_points of 500 and the `truncated` flag disclosing possible partial results, plus breakpoint/step semantics via jump_from. Only pagination-style navigation beyond the cap is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and refines it in one dense but well-ordered paragraph: return shape, semantics, cap behavior, then the use case. Slightly packed, but virtually every clause conveys information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: breakpoint structure, units, jump_from semantics, per-envelope cap, and truncation signal. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that `parameter` restricts output to one envelope, `max_points` caps each envelope, and jump_from marks a step's preceding value. It adds meaning beyond the schema text rather than repeating it.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus resource (a Session clip's automation), with the return shape ({time, value, jump_from?}) spelled out. The closing clause 'before drawing over it' implicitly routes the agent away from draw_automation/clear_automation, so the purpose is distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context: inspect existing automation before overwriting it, and states the parameter-scoping option. It does not explicitly name draw_automation as the alternative or state when-not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full when/alternatives statement.

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