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 full disclosure burden. It does declare 'Read-only', which is a genuine safety signal for a tool whose name could suggest a write ('routing'). But it says nothing about error behavior, what happens with zero target arguments, or the shape of the returned routing data. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.

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 tight sentence listing the returned fields plus a two-word safety tag. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema, so the description's field enumeration is the only clue to the return value — and it does list them. However, for a read tool with no annotations and no guidance on target selection or mutual exclusivity among track/track_contains/target_track_guid/use_selected_track, an agent is left to guess which selector wins when more than one is supplied.

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 four targeting parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, including the useful 'errors if it matches more than one track' note on track_contains and the 'preferred when available' note on target_track_guid. The description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a track's routing') and enumerates exactly which routing properties are returned: sends, receives, parent bus, volume, pan, phase, automation mode. That is unusually concrete. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_mix_snapshot or get_context, which likely overlap in track-level information.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With 38 sibling tools and multiple read-oriented ones (get_status, get_context, get_mix_snapshot, analyze_track, compare_tracks, profile_track), an agent has no basis for choosing this over them. It also doesn't warn that no target parameter is required, even though 0 of 4 params are required — so calling it with no arguments is legal but its behavior is undefined here.

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