get_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: non-applicable properties land under `unavailable`, enum values are returned as names, name selectors are accepted, and ambiguous name matches raise an error listing indices.

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-loads the verb and resource list, and the long address grammar is dense but necessary for a path-addressed API. Some address examples are verbose, but each clause carries distinct information rather than filler.

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 does carry the burden of return behavior and does so reasonably: it explains the `unavailable` bucket, enum-name conversion, and the error path for ambiguous selectors. It stops short of describing the overall return envelope, but for a property reader whose address grammar is already exhaustively documented, coverage is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that `names` defaults to all readable properties, that indices are 0-based, and that a name selector like 'tracks/name:Drift' can substitute for any number — semantics the terse schema strings do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read properties') plus an explicit enumeration of the resource types it can address (Song, Track, Scene, ClipSlot, Clip, device, rack chain, drum pad, etc.), which cleanly distinguishes it from set_properties (write) and list_properties (enumerate). An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 actionable guidance: 'Give `names` for specific properties, or omit it to read every readable property,' and routes to the sibling with 'Use list_properties to see what exists.' No explicit when-not conditions or mention of the set_properties write counterpart, so not a full 5.

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