get_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only,' which is essential and correctly signals safety. However, it discloses nothing about cost, latency, or size on large projects, and the read-only claim is not backed by a readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Four terse clauses front-load the resource and enumerate returned content, then close with the safety and timing notes. No filler or 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?

For a read-only project-context tool with no output schema and one fully documented boolean parameter, the description is nearly complete: it says what is read, that it is read-only, and when to run it. It could add a note about output size or pagination behavior on large projects, but nothing critical 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% and the single parameter (include_fx) is fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'with FX names' but adds no detail on the toggle's semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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?

Specific verb (Read) and resource (the open REAPER project), with an explicit inventory of what is returned: name, tempo, transport, cursor, time selection, tracks with FX names, markers, regions. This distinguishes it from narrow siblings like get_status, get_track_routing, or scan_fx.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Run before ambiguous edits,' which tells the agent when this broad read is warranted. It doesn't name specific alternatives (e.g., get_status for a lighter query), so it falls short of the explicit when-not/alternatives bar.

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