get_track_routing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious details: the exact values for monitoring state (0=In, 1=Auto, 2=Off) and that routing options are identified by display_name. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a secondary sentence adding important usage guidance. No superfluous words.

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?

Given one simple parameter, an output schema (indicated by context), and a read-only annotation, the description covers all essential aspects. It explains what is returned and how to use the data, making it complete for an agent.

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?

The only parameter is track_index, which is simply titled in the schema. The description does not add further explanation beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the burden but the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 'Read a track's input/output routing and monitoring state,' specifying a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_track_routing by explaining that the routing options are used with that tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned routing strings with set_track_routing, providing clear context on how to use the output. However, it does not list alternative tools or scenarios when not to use this tool.

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