als_list_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value by disclosing that no Live runtime is required and what data is extracted, enhancing the agent's understanding.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and the key constraint ('No Live required').

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 listing tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description fairly covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention file existence requirements, but those are typical and implied.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by implying the 'path' parameter refers to a '.als file' and listing the extracted clip attributes. It could explicitly state the file format expectation, but the context is sufficient.

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 specifies the exact action ('List every track') and resource ('saved .als file') with detailed attributes of clips. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'als_summary' by noting 'No Live required' and the scope of listing all tracks with clips.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing to enumerate tracks and clips from an .als file without Live). It implicitly excludes other ALS tools by its specificity, but could explicitly mention alternatives for contrast.

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