track_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful output behavior: full clip list with start/end/title per clip, or label list for label tracks, and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free or error behavior, but the conditional label-track behavior and output details add real transparency.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose and return content, followed by a focused Args section. Every sentence earns its place, especially the caveat about track_id, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 single-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains where the ID comes from, what the tool returns, and how label tracks differ. Minor missing details like exact JSON key names or error behavior are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the single parameter. It does so excellently: track_id is defined as 'The track's id, from project_get_info's track list', with an explicit warning that it is NOT the same as the 0-based 'track' index used elsewhere. This is precise, actionable, and prevents a likely misuse.

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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed info about one track', and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, type, rate, mute/solo, clip list, or label list for label tracks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get_info or label_get_all, which operate at different scopes.

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 gives clear context on how to obtain track_id: 'from project_get_info's track list', and explicitly warns against using the 0-based 'track' index from track_set_properties'/track_resample. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to choose between, but the sourcing guidance and exclusion of a common mistake provide solid usage direction.

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