track_get_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists representative returned fields (names, types, rates) which helps, but uses vague 'etc.' without clarifying what other fields exist. Does not disclose return structure (array vs object), error conditions, or whether this reflects current project state or cached data.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place: 'Get information' establishes action, 'all tracks' establishes scope, parenthetical lists clarify return payload. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without output schema, description should ideally detail return structure. While it lists example fields (names, types, rates), the 'etc.' leaves significant ambiguity about the full response shape. Adequate for a simple parameterless getter but lacks completeness given zero schema coverage on the output side.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage establishes baseline 4. Description adds value by specifying 'all tracks' scope, implicitly explaining why no track_id filter parameter exists or is needed.

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 ('Get') + resource ('tracks') + scope ('all tracks in the project') with concrete field examples (names, types, rates). Clearly distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like track_set_properties, track_remove, and track_add_*. Uses 'Get information' to signal read-only introspection vs. modification.

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?

Purpose is clear enough that usage is implied (use when you need track metadata), but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. Does not contrast with project_get_info (which gets project-level vs track-level data) or track_select (which changes selection state vs returning data).

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