get_track_routing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does state 'Read-only' which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose error behaviors beyond what the schema already says (e.g., errors on ambiguous names, errors on nothing selected). The schema already documents those error conditions, so the description adds only the read-only trait. It doesn't mention what happens if the track doesn't exist, or whether the returned data has any particular structure. A 3 is appropriate – minimal but not misleading.

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?

One sentence with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Read a track's routing'), followed by a compact field list, and the read-only trait is stated at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 query tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or how the routing data is structured, but with no output schema, a brief note on what the response contains would help. However, the field list in the description partially covers this. The tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including precedence rules and error conditions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a track's routing'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (sends, receives, parent bus, volume, pan, phase, automation mode). It also explicitly declares 'Read-only', which distinguishes it from mutation tools like write_automation or set_fx_param. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 says 'Read-only' and the tool name clearly indicates a read operation, which implies when to use it (when you need routing info) versus mutation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list includes get_mix_snapshot and profile_track which could overlap, but the description doesn't address that distinction. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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