FmodStudioMCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.4.0
- Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct resources, but several pairs overlap: automation_add_curve vs automation_add both start curves, and utility_lookup, event_lookup, and utility_dump all perform reference/introspection duties with muddy boundaries. The general-purpose utility_delete and utility_dump also blur with resource-specific tools (marker_delete, sound_info). The marker_* family and the per-resource info/list tools remain mostly unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5Names follow a strong `<domain>_<verb>` convention (event_play, bank_create, marker_delete) with 13 or so clear domains. Deviations exist: automation_add vs automation_add_curve, sound_add_to_track vs event_add_track, and oddballs like mixer_send_create, snapshot_bind_group, and utility_dump break the pattern.
Tool Count2/591 tools is an extreme number for any MCP server, even one wrapping a complex DAW automation API. The toolset could likely be consolidated (e.g., merging automation_add into automation_add_curve, folding lookup/dump/info variants).
Completeness4/5Remarkably deep coverage across events, banks, mixers, VCAs, snapshots, markers, automation, and parameters, with sensible workflow tools (project_save, project_build). Minor gaps exist—no way to remove a mixer effect, delete an automation curve, or delete a sound—though utility_delete partially papers over these.
Average 3.7/5 across 80 of 91 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'Rename' but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or reversibility. Since renaming is a mutating operation, the description should at least hint at whether it modifies an existing event or has any constraints. It also doesn't mention output or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one line plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is clear and efficient. No waste, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool. It lacks behavioral details, error conditions, or any note about validation. It also doesn't cover potential edge cases (e.g., renaming to an existing name). It is adequate for a trivial rename, but not sufficiently complete for a tool with no other structured info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% because the input schema only provides titles ('Name' and 'Target') without descriptions. The description adds minimal value by explaining 'target: event:// path or {guid}' and 'name: New name.' This clarifies the format of target, but it does not describe constraints, examples, or behavior for the name parameter. Since coverage is very low, the description must compensate, but it barely does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Rename an event.' It specifies the resource type (event) and the action (rename). Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'event_set_folder' or 'sound_set_name', the verb 'rename' is specific enough for an event-related tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. For a simple rename operation, the description implies usage, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. It lacks any statement about permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear argument list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks information about usage scenarios, output, or side effects, making it incomplete for a comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides some meaning for the 'target' parameter by specifying it can be a 'bank:/ path or {guid}', which adds context beyond the schema's plain string type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a bank's guid, name and path.' It is specific to banks and distinguishes from similar info tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bank_list or bank_info. It only describes the parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but does not disclose potential irreversibility, cascade effects (e.g., deleting related items), or any specific behavior beyond the basic action. The description omits safety-related details that a deletion tool typically should mention, such as confirmation requirements or what happens to dependent objects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and to the point, containing only the necessary action and one parameter hint. It is front-loaded and contains no waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a usage note), but the brevity is appropriate for the simple action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and the minimal description, the tool is not fully documented. The single parameter is partially described, but the deletion behavior remains opaque, and the context for when to use it is absent. For a destructive operation, this level of completeness is insufficient for safe and correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal information about the 'target' parameter by specifying its expected format ('event:// path or {guid}'), which is valuable because the input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage). However, the parameter semantics are still only partially explained; additional format details or examples could further aid the agent, but the provided format hint is a reasonable baseline given the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Delete an event') and identifies the resource type (event). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like utility_delete or utility_validate, the verb+object combination is clear and provides sufficient clarity for the tool's primary purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., utility_delete for generic deletion, or marker_delete for other resource types). It does not specify any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for deletion, leaving the agent without decision support regarding alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'of a playing event instance,' implying a precondition, but doesn't explain what happens if the event isn't playing, whether the return state is disclosed, or what the actual toggle behavior is (pause vs. resume). Minimal context is added beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief—a single lead sentence stating the purpose and a one-line parameter spec. Every word earns its place and there's no extraneous filler. Slightly more behavioral context might be desired, but for what it attempts, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool (1 required param, no output schema, no enums), so the bar for completeness is lower. The description covers the purpose and input format. However, it's missing context on return values or state outcomes, and the behavior on non-playing events is ambiguous. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by specifying the target format as 'event:// path or {guid},' which clarifies the accepted input. However, it doesn't explain the difference between the two formats or constrain them further. This partial compensation from the description is adequate for a single-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Toggle') + resource ('pause state of a playing event instance'), which clearly communicates the action. It's mostly clear but slightly tautological ('toggle the pause state') and doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like event_play or event_stop, though the toggle semantics are inferable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like event_play, event_stop, event_key_off, or event_return_to_start. The scope is implied only by the word 'toggle' (requiring an already-playing instance), but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative naming is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool checks validity and that validity relates to recent edits, but doesn't disclose what happens on invalid objects (error? return value?), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The description is too thin to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a clear one-line purpose and a single parameter explanation. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. The only minor issue is that it could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. However, it lacks context about what 'valid' means beyond 'survived recent edits', and doesn't explain the return value or error behavior. For a utility tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. The sibling 'utility_validate' suggests there might be a more comprehensive validation tool, but this description doesn't clarify the distinction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target' as 'Object path or {guid}', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't provide examples or clarify the format of the object path or guid, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline for low coverage is 3, and this meets it minimally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool checks whether an object is valid, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('object'). It adds context that validity means 'survived recent edits', which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'utility_validate', which likely has a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'utility_validate' or 'utility_lookup'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or context for use. The only hint is the parenthetical about recent edits, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'report issues,' which hints at output but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what 'issues' means. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short for a tool with no parameters, though it could benefit from a bit more context without sacrificing brevity. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain what validation covers, what format issues are reported in, or whether any state changes occur. The description is too minimal to fully prepare an agent for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the core action ('Run the project's validation') and the outcome ('report issues'). It is specific enough to distinguish from other tools, though it could be more precise about what validation entails. No sibling tool performs a similar function, so it is adequately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description simply states what it does without context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete a bank and its contents' discloses destructive scope but omits critical details such as whether the deletion is undoable, whether it requires exclusive access, or what happens to events owned by the bank. There is no mention of confirmation or effects on other workspace entities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact: one sentence plus an args line. It avoids redundancy but is arguably under-specified for a destructive operation. It earns a 4 for being front-loaded and free of filler, but loses a point for omitting important usage context that brevity permitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is destructive, has a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description should compensate by explaining return values, irreversibility, or edge cases (e.g., deleting a bank with referenced events). It does not, leaving the agent to guess at the operational impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% — the schema only provides 'target' with type string. The description fills this gap by specifying the accepted formats ('bank:/ path or {guid}'), which adds meaningful syntax guidance beyond the schema. However, it could further clarify whether the GUID refers to a universally unique bank identifier or workspace-scoped identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a bank'), and further specifies it removes the bank's contents. This differentiates it from siblings like bank_create, bank_list, bank_info, and bank_rename, and confirms it operates on the bank entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bank_remove_event (which removes specific events rather than whole banks). It also fails to mention whether the bank must be empty, whether deletion is irreversible, or any prerequisites like having the bank loaded.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the event is created in a specific folder (master or event://) and that folder is optional, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens if event already exists, whether it overwrites, if owner permissions are needed), creation process details, or return values. It doesn't describe any behavioral traits beyond basic creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args section. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section is minimal. No waste, but could be slightly more detailed within the same structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a creation (write) operation with no annotations and no output schema. It has only 2 parameters, but the description only partially explains them. It doesn't specify what happens on success/failure, whether creation is idempotent, or any prerequisites. For a simple create tool, it should at least disclose side effects and possibly success behavior, which it lacks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description provides useful semantics for both parameters: name (with examples 'Hit', 'UI/Hover') and folder (optional event:// path or {guid}). This adds value beyond the raw schema, which only lists types. However, it doesn't explain constraints on naming, folder format nuances, or default behavior when folder is null.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an event in the master event folder (or an event:// folder).' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('event'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the target location (master event folder or event:// folder). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like event_delete or event_set_name, but the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to create an event), but provides no exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't explicitly say not to use other tools or provide context on when an event might already exist or require update via event_set_name. It gives a basic usage context with the folder parameter but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between this and related tools like sound_create or audio_import.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the default routing to Master and the optional output_target format. It does not describe side effects, return values, prerequisites, or any failure modes. For a creation tool, this is insufficient transparency regarding what actually happens when the group is created.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear two-sentence structure plus a simple Args block, with no unnecessary fluff. It loses a point for not using a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) but is otherwise concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter formats. However, it leaves out important context such as what the response looks like (even though no output schema), potential errors (e.g., duplicate names), and whether additional configuration is needed. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the schema. 'name: Group name.' is essentially a repeat of the schema's 'Name'. For output_target, it does add 'Optional output bus/group path or {guid}', which provides some format context, but it does not explain how to specify a path, what {guid} refers to, or what the default behavior is beyond 'Master'. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a mixer group'. It specifies the resource (mixer group) and includes a key behavioral default ('routed to Master by default'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mixer_group_rename or mixer_group_delete, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where mixer groups are appropriate or when to consider other group types (e.g., VCA groups). The only hint is the default routing, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The term 'capped' hints at a limit but does not specify the cap amount or behavior when the limit is reached. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or any side effects, and the absence of annotations leaves the description carrying the full burden without sufficient detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, a single short sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the parenthetical 'capped' is vague and could be elaborated, but overall it is efficient and not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete for a simple listing function. However, the lack of detail about the cap and missing usage context makes it less complete than ideal. It adequately describes the basic function but leaves out important behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (i.e., no parameters to document). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is clear: 'List every mixer group in the project (capped).' It specifies the verb (list) and the resource (mixer groups in the project), and the parenthetical 'capped' suggests a limit. It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like mixer_group_info and mixer_group_rename by focusing on listing all groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it's appropriate to list mixer groups or how it differs from related tools like mixer_group_info. The description only states the function without providing context on usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'Build banks' with a performance hint, but does not disclose whether it mutates project state, whether it is idempotent, how long it takes, or what happens to existing banks. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is repetitive but acceptable. It earns a 4 because it's compact yet clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks critical context: no mention of side effects, return values, performance expectations beyond a speed hint, or how this tool differs from sibling tools like bank_create or project_get_info. For a build operation with 2 parameters and no schema help, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does add meaning by naming the parameters and stating defaults ('every bank', 'every platform'). However, it does not explain what a bank or platform is, or how the parameters interact. This partially compensates for the missing schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Build banks') and the resource (banks) with optional scoping by platform. It distinguishes from the many bank_* sibling tools by implying a bulk build operation, though it doesn't explicitly say what 'build' means (compile? generate?).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a hint about scoping for performance ('scoping a big project to one bank is much faster'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bank_create or bank_list. No exclusions or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without revealing whether the rename is permanent/destructive, whether the old name is immediately replaced, whether bindings to the snapshot break, whether names must be unique, or what happens when a GUID references a nonexistent snapshot. For a mutation operation, these are significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the one-sentence purpose statement leads, followed by a clean args list. Each line is purposeful and there is no padding. However, the arg lines themselves are sparse, and 'name: New name' adds little value, slightly reducing the efficiency of the structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description delivers the core purpose and target format. However, it omits behavioral details (permanence, uniqueness, existence requirements) and usage prerequisites, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete for agents that need failure-mode awareness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The target parameter receives meaningful explanation (accepts snapshot:/ path or {guid}), but the name parameter gets only 'New name,' which is tautological with the schema property title. Compensation is partial at best, leaving one of two parameters under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Rename' with the defined resource 'mixer snapshot' is specific and distinct from siblings like snapshot_create, snapshot_delete, snapshot_info, and snapshot_list. 'Rename' inherently signals a different operation from these siblings, and the parameter format description (snapshot:/ path or {guid}) further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as snapshot_create or mixer_group_rename. It doesn't mention prerequisites like verifying the snapshot exists via snapshot_info/list first, nor does it exclude any use cases. A rename tool with similar sibling patterns (mixer_group_rename) would benefit from explicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or side effects of creation. It only restates the tool's purpose without revealing what happens under the hood (e.g., whether the instrument appears in the project tree, persists, or has immediate effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only one sentence and a compact Args block. Every element (the purpose clarification and the sound type list) adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the key action first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 scalar parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate: it explains the primary use case and provides the enum values. However, it omits any mention of return behavior, errors, or how the created sound is integrated, which could be important for an agent to properly chain calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a list of allowed values for sound_type (SingleSound, MultiSound, etc.) that is not present in the schema, adding valuable semantics. However, it does not explain what each type means or clarify the 'name' parameter beyond its optionality, leaving gaps for an agent selecting arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a standalone instrument' with a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds useful context about SingleSound and Multi playlists. It distinguishes the tool from other create-type siblings (e.g., vca_create, bank_create) by clarifying the resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The phrase 'usually a SingleSound for a Multi's playlist' gives a hint of intended usage, but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from creating sounds via other means (e.g., importing or duplicating).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'capped' which hints at a limit, but doesn't explain what the cap is, how it behaves (e.g., pagination, truncation), or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, though listing is typically safe. The lack of detail on the cap and return format is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a one-line purpose and a single parameter explanation. It's front-loaded and efficient. The only minor issue is that the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema, but it's not harmful. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), so the description is mostly complete. However, the 'capped' behavior is unexplained, and there's no mention of what the returned list contains (e.g., event names, IDs). Given the simplicity, it's adequate but leaves some questions about the cap and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains bank_target as 'bank:/ path or {guid}', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't provide examples or clarify the format of the path or GUID. Given the single parameter and the minimal explanation, it's adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists events assigned to a bank, with a cap. The verb 'list' and resource 'events assigned to a bank' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like bank_info (which likely describes the bank itself) and event_list (which lists all events globally). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to see events in a bank. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like event_list or bank_info. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between this and similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description says 'Get...' but does not state read-only/no side effects. It is a simple getter, but with the absence of annotations the description does not carry the full safety/error context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence plus input schema, all of which is needed; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has only a minimal getter with one parameter; it describes returned fields but lacks output schema, error behavior, not-found case, or relation to sibling retrieval tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description gives the accepted formats for 'target' (event:// path or {guid}), compensating for the schema description that just says 'string'. It explains format but not overlapping semantics for constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb+object ('Get an event's guid, name, path and maxVoices'), with the target parameter format described. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling event tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Context of use is implied by the tool name and event-specific parameters, but no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over sibling event_get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Rename a mixer group,' implying a mutation but not stating any side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or impact on references. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose and two lines for parameters. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple rename operation but still a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks alternative guidance, behavioral caveats, and any note about what happens after the rename. It is a minimal viable description but falls short for a complete contextual picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'target: Group path or {guid}' and 'name: New name.' This provides essential meaning beyond the schema, but it lacks detail on acceptable formats or constraints, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Rename a mixer group.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like mixer_group_create, mixer_group_delete, and mixer_group_info, all of which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, restrictions, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate. It merely states the action without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description mentions the result is 'capped', which is useful, but it fails to disclose what the cap is, whether the listing is ordered, whether it includes all fields or just identifiers, or any error conditions. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a generic listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence plus the parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The parameter list is useful but takes up a line; it could be more compact by including types inline, but it is still efficient and each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter options. However, it lacks details about the output format, pagination, or the specific cap. For a generic listing tool that can return many object types, more clarity about the result structure would be expected, but the simplicity reduces the need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter, 'obj_type', and the description enumerates the allowed values in the Args section. Since schema coverage is 0% and there are no enums in the schema, the description compensates by listing the valid types. However, it could add more meaning, such as what each type represents or how the string should be formatted (e.g., case-sensitive).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists every object of a given type, with a list of supported types. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'folder_list' and 'event_list' because it is a generic utility that can list various object types, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb 'list' and resource (object type) are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage guidance is implied: use this when you need to list objects of one of the provided types. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over the more specific list tools (e.g., 'folder_list', 'event_list'). It mentions the types it supports, which helps, but does not guide on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'move' and gives argument formats, but does not disclose side effects, whether the folder must already exist, how 'master folder root' is expressed, or what happens if the target is already in the folder.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one clear sentence plus a compact argument list. Every word contributes, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter move operation, the description is adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around root-folder syntax, failure behavior, and whether existing folder membership is removed. This is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful format guidance for both parameters ('event:// path or {guid}'), but it leaves ambiguity around the master folder root syntax and does not elaborate on folder hierarchy semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('event') and destination ('folder' or 'master folder root'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like folder_create, folder_list, and event_set_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description states the action but does not clarify when an agent should choose this over related event/folder tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral transparency. It only states that deletion occurs, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., if the marker doesn't exist), reversibility, or any impact on associated data. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, containing only the essential action and parameter explanation. The structure is acceptable, though the 'Args:' label is a bit abrupt. No unnecessary words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is a delete operation with no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites. The current description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about what to expect when invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'target' parameter by specifying it as a Marker GUID, which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand the expected format, though it does not explain how to obtain or format the GUID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool deletes a marker/region/sustain point/transition, which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling marker tools like marker_add_* and marker_rename by indicating the delete action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is a significant gap given the many sibling marker tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Save the open FMOD Studio project' – it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., overwrites the existing file), prerequisites (e.g., must have an open project), or error conditions (e.g., behavior if no project is open). For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon success/failure, whether the save is asynchronous, or any details about the save operation. It also fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'project_save_all'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties). The description adds value by specifying the target (the active .fspro) which is relevant to understanding the scope of the action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: saving the open FMOD Studio project (.fspro). The verb 'save' is specific and the resource is unambiguous (the active project). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from 'project_save_all' in the sibling list, the description implies a specific scope (the open project) versus saving all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: save the active project when you want to persist changes. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. project_save_all or project_build, nor does it mention any preconditions (e.g., whether project must be open or modified).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It explains how snapshots capture state and that the returned path is used for binding, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, permissions, or idempotency. The description is informative about the snapshot mechanism but incomplete regarding creation-specific behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with a clear one-line purpose, then elaborating with context. It avoids unnecessary jargon and stays focused, though the second sentence partially repeats the first. Overall, it is efficient without being overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides solid conceptual context for snapshots and hints at the return path, which is helpful. However, it omits potential edge cases (e.g., duplicate names, behavior on failure) and does not clarify if the operation has any prerequisites. For a simple create operation, it is reasonably complete but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only 'name' with no description, and the tool description adds only 'Snapshot name.' This offers minimal additional meaning beyond the parameter label, lacking details on constraints, uniqueness, or format. The description does not meaningfully compensate for the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a mixer snapshot' and explains the concept of a snapshot as capturing mixer state changes. It distinguishes this creation action from other snapshot operations (list, info, rename, delete, bind) by focusing on the act of creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need a new snapshot) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with other snapshot functions. It does reference the complementary snapshot_bind_group, which provides some guidance, but lacks explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: errors on duplicate names, parameter constraints (position >=0, length >0), and default loop_mode. It also mentions the parameter types and default behavior, which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., does it modify existing regions?) or return behavior, but it's fairly transparent for a simple add operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a brief purpose sentence followed by a clear arg list. It's front-loaded with the primary action. However, the arg list could be tighter; some items like 'loop_mode' lack explanation of each option, and the description could be more structured (e.g., grouping destination region context). But it's not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (5 params including enums-like loop_mode) and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage but omits important details: it doesn't specify the meaning of 'loop_mode' options (Looping vs Magnet), doesn't describe return values, and doesn't explicitly state that the track must exist or that the name is unique. The description covers the core but lacks edge-case context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% per context signals, meaning the description is the only source of parameter meaning. The description provides a terse list of args with minimal context: e.g., 'track_target: Marker track {guid} from event_add_marker_track.' This adds some meaning beyond schema titles, but it doesn't explain formats (e.g., name restrictions, position precision) or how loop_mode affects behavior. With 5 params and no schema descriptions, the description should be more detailed to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: adding a labeled range (region) to a marker track, with usage examples like section transitions. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'destination (loop) region' and errors on duplicate names, making it specific. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like marker_add_named or marker_add_transition_region, so it's not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (adding destination regions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like marker_add_named or marker_add_transition_region. It also doesn't provide exclusion criteria or mention required parent tracks beyond the track_target parameter. The mention of 'loop_mode' implies use cases but not explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the mutation (adds an effect) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether effects are appended or replaced, error handling for invalid effect types, or permissions required. The example effect types give some context but not enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear purpose statement and a compact parameter list. No redundant sentences or fluff. Each part serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about return values, prerequisites, error handling, and side effects. The tool is simple (2 params) but still could benefit from notes on group existence or effect type validity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful information: target is 'Group path or {guid}' and effect lists example types. However, it does not specify the exact format of a group path or whether the effect types are exhaustive. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add an effect') and the target resource ('group's effect chain'). It distinguishes from siblings like mixer_effect_list (which lists effects) and other group operations. The verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the description and sibling tools (e.g., this is for adding, mixer_effect_list is for listing), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., group must exist). No exclusions or fallback suggestions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is to list effects, which implies a read-only action, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects, does not require special permissions, or explain what happens if the group does not exist. No behavioral protraits beyond the basic action are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one sentence and a parameter clarification. It front-loads the primary purpose immediately and includes no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the description is minimal but lacks critical context for an agent to confidently invoke it. There is no output schema, so the return format is unknown, and the description does not specify what constitutes a 'chain' or what to expect in the response. Additionally, no guidance is given on error conditions or how this tool integrates with other mixer tools. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description supplements the bare schema (which has no parameter descriptions, 0% coverage) by explaining that the 'target' parameter accepts either a group path or a GUID. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition, helping the agent understand the acceptable format. However, it does not elaborate on path conventions or examples, so it is not exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List the effects on a group's chain.' This provides a specific verb (list) and resource (effects on a group's chain), and it distinguishes from the sibling tool mixer_effect_add which adds effects. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to other tools like mixer_group_info or mixer_effect_add, or to when listing effects would be appropriate. This is a significant gap for usage decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'Reads the assignment back before returning', which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the basic set operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions, or what happens if the assignment fails. The reference to sound_set_audio_file for reading back is helpful but not fully transparent about the return value or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a behavioral note and parameter explanations. It uses a clear structure with 'Args:' section. The only minor issue is the reference to sound_set_audio_file, which might be slightly confusing without context, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and a behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., does the target sound need to exist?), and what 'reads back' means in terms of return value. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' is a SingleSound {guid} and 'owner' is an Owner MultiSound/Scatterer {guid}, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only says 'string'). However, it doesn't explain the format of the GUIDs or any constraints (e.g., must be valid GUIDs), and the example is brief. This is adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a sound's owning instrument' with a concrete example (SingleSound into a MultiSound). It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (sound's owning instrument), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sound_set_name or sound_set_audio_file. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all related siblings, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by giving an example of when to use it (e.g., assigning a SingleSound into a MultiSound), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It also references sound_set_audio_file for reading back the assignment, which provides some cross-tool guidance, but this is more about behavior than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. It also does not specify the return format or error behavior, leaving uncertainty about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose and parameter format without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details about return values, error conditions, and side effects. While it gives the purpose and parameter hints, it does not provide enough context for a user to fully understand the tool's behavior in various scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the target parameter, providing examples of valid paths (event:/..., bank:/...) and mentioning {guid}. This adds semantic detail beyond the simple string type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: resolving any object to its identity, with examples of object types. It distinguishes this from other tools like list or create, as it's a lookup operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a lookup is needed. It only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not address edge cases such as what happens when no object is selected, whether it returns null, or if it might throw an error. This is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the essential information in a compact and efficient manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently explains its function. It could mention return value behavior for empty selections, but the core purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in typical scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any arguments. Per calibration rules, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific action ('Get') and a clear resource ('object currently selected in the open editor window'), making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like workspace_info or workspace_browser_current, which focus on workspace or browser state rather than the editor selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context about workflow placement. It is a bare statement of function with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a mutation without detailing side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It does not disclose whether the assignment overwrites existing values or has other consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear action statement and a brief arg list. It wastes no words while conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but does not cover potential side effects, error conditions, or idempotency. It provides just enough to understand the core operation but leaves some behavioral gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are described in the text with format hints ('bank:/ path or {guid}', 'event:/ path or {guid}'), adding meaningful detail beyond the schema's basic string type. This aids correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Assign an event to a bank') and the rationale ('so it ships with the build'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the purpose but does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on appropriate scenarios or conditions, leaving the AI to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the core action. It does not disclose whether the event is deleted, whether the bank must already contain the event, or what the side effects are.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter breakdown is minimal and direct, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool, this is minimally adequate, but it lacks behavioral details such as return behavior, error cases, and whether the event is removed or deleted. No output schema exists to fill these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds useful format guidance for both parameters: bank:/ path or {guid} and event:/ path or {guid}. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this extra context is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Remove an event from a bank." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bank_add_event, bank_delete, and bank_list_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why to choose this over bank_add_event or bank_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect (triggers release behavior for sustain points) but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., event must be playing), side effects, or what happens if the event is not playing. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence stating the action and effect. The Args section is minimal but sufficient for a single parameter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the core behavior but lacks details on error conditions, prerequisites, or return values. For a simple command tool, this is acceptable but could be improved with a note about the event needing to be playing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' is an event:// path or {guid}, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Target' title. However, it does not provide examples or clarify the format further, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a keyoff command to a playing event instance, triggering release behavior for sustain points. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_play, event_stop, and event_toggle_pause.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for playing events with sustain points ahead of the playhead, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like event_stop or event_toggle_pause. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the rename operation but does not disclose side effects, such as whether GUIDs remain stable, whether names must be unique, or how references are affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded, with only two sentences and a compact definition of the two arguments. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter rename tool, the description provides the core operation and parameter meanings, but lacks usage guidance and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally viable but not rich enough to handle edge cases or unexpected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning: 'target' is clarified as a marker/region GUID and 'name' as the new name. This goes beyond the bare string type declarations in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb 'Rename' with a clear resource 'named marker or region', distinguishing it from sibling tools like marker_set_position, marker_set_region, and marker_delete. The Args section reinforces the purpose by specifying target and new name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling list, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description only states the action without context of appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool reads back the assignment, that a guid alone isn't proof of attachment, and that it raises on failure rather than reporting false success. It adds valuable insight beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing assignments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a clear main action, a behavioral note, and parameter explanations. Each sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan. Slightly longer than minimal but not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main behavior and parameters but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., asset must be imported, instrument must exist) and side effects (e.g., whether an existing assignment is overwritten). Given no annotations and no output schema, these gaps make it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'target' is an Instrument guid or path, and 'audio' is an Asset guid from audio_import. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool assigns an audio asset to an instrument, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sound_add_to_track or sound_create, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description covers 'how' but not 'when' or 'when not to use'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It does a good job explaining side-effect behavior ('scales every mixer strip assigned to it'), which is the core VCA mechanic. However, it omits other behavioral details like whether the VCA is persisted immediately, whether the name must be unique, or what happens on invalid names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficient single-sentence explanation that front-loads the key concept with a useful analogy and concrete examples. The trailing Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but costs only one line.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the domain context provided is strong and mostly sufficient. The gap is that it never discloses what a successful call returns (e.g., a row id, a name), what a duplicate name does, or whether this is immediately reversible — leaving the agent to guess the contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but the Args section ('name: VCA name') adds almost nothing beyond the schema's 'Name' string. It omits constraints like uniqueness requirements, character limits, or formats — precisely the detail that would justify low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Create a VCA' with an excellent plain-language explanation of the domain concept ('a volume control that scales every mixer strip assigned to it'). The parenthetical examples ('Music', 'SFX', 'Voice') make the purpose concrete and distinguish this from siblings like vca_assign and vca_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the intended use case (grouping several buses under one fader) and gives concrete examples, which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives (e.g., mixer_group_create or vca_assign) or states when NOT to use it, which matters given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the intended action without mentioning error behavior, side effects (e.g., changing selection or focus), prerequisites, or return values. For a tool that likely triggers a UI action, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line args note. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter navigation tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning but omits operational details like error handling, return values, or what happens when the target is invalid. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description defines the single parameter target as 'Object path or {guid},' which adds a format hint not present in the input schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate: it lacks examples, path syntax, or clarifications of accepted object types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Open an object') and the context ('in the relevant editor'), naming example editors like 'event editor, mixer.' This distinguishes it from sibling workspace tools (info, browser, selection) that focus on queries or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'open' and the descriptor 'relevant editor.' There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like workspace_browser_current or workspace_editor_selection, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'capped' (a behavioral limitation), which is useful, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format. For a read-only list operation, more detail would be helpful, yet the cap adds some value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-line purpose and a clear argument explanation. Every word contributes, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but the description does not specify the return format or what folder information is included. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be beneficial, though the current description is minimally viable for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'kind' parameter by specifying valid values (EventFolder | AssetFolder) and explaining omission behavior, which is not present in the schema (no enum or parameter description). This adequately compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists folders in the project browser and mentions a 'capped' limit. It is specific to folders and distinguishes from generic list tools like utility_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It describes an optional filter for EventFolder or AssetFolder and explains that omitting gets all, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like utility_list, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It says 'set initial value' but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing values, or any error conditions. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One-line summary plus a concise Args list. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with 3 params, the description provides sufficient context. But no mention of side effects or failure conditions, so not perfect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining event_target format and parameter_name source. Value is only described as 'initial value', which is a bit redundant but still adds context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a game parameter's initial value on an event. The verb-object structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like parameter_set_labels or parameter_add.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., parameter must exist). Only hints about parameter_name sourcing from parameter_list but no explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool gets info but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe what happens if no project is open, or mention potential error conditions. The word 'get' implies safety, but no explicit behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and return values. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's trivial complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned: file path and display name. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but these are not substantial gaps for such a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties), and the description adds no parameter ambiguity. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('open project') and states exactly what is returned ('file path and display name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_get_modified, which reports modification state, and project_save, which writes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_info or project_get_modified. The description gives no context for when this getter is appropriate, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like having a project open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as whether the operation overwrites existing sounds, requires a specific event state, or has any destructive impact. The only behavioral insight is that a guid is returned for follow-up, which is insufficient for a tool that modifies a track.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized list of parameters. Each parameter has a short, focused explanation without extraneous information. The structure is easy to scan and understand, earning full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic action and return value, but lacks broader context such as error conditions, prerequisites, or the exact effect on the event's timeline. It does not explain whether the sound is added at a specific point or how length interacts with existing content. The mention of follow-up calls partially compensates, but overall the context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All six parameters are described with meaningful semantics: event_target accepts a path or guid, track_target clarifies it must be a trackGuid from event_list_tracks, sound_type enumerates valid values, start and length specify units, and name is optional. This provides comprehensive guidance beyond the bare schema, covering every parameter effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Place an instrument on an event's track timeline.' It also indicates the return value's purpose, which helps distinguish it from other sound-related tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sound_create or sound_set_audio_file, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides indirect usage hints through parameter details (e.g., track_target should come from event_list_tracks, sound_type enumeration) and mentions follow-up calls, which implies a workflow. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the tool lists all banks but adds a vague 'capped' constraint without specifying the cap size or consequences. There is no mention of side effects, but a list operation is inherently read-only, so the lack of explicit disclosure is not critical. Still, the ambiguity around 'capped' could be a behavioral surprise.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that conveys the essential action and scope without excess. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately clarifies the resource and a limiting factor (cap). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no annotations, no output schema), yet the description omits important context: what does 'capped' mean? What is the cap? Are results ordered? Does it return full bank objects or summaries? For a listing tool, this information would help the agent set expectations. While the basic purpose is clear, the lack of any detail about the response format or cap size leaves the agent uncertain about invocation outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on params Interests. The phrase 'every bank' clarifies the scope, and 'capped' hints at a limit, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists every bank in the project, with a specific resource (bank) and action (list). The parenthetical '(capped)' adds a specific constraint, distinguishing this from a simple enumeration. Though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like bank_info, the name and phrasing make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bank_info or bank_list_events. The description is a bare statement of function with no context about use cases or exclusions. For a simple list tool, the lack of explicit usage direction leaves the agent without cues on when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it moves a marker, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if the target guid is invalid, whether position is clamped, or if any related data (like snapshots or automation) is affected). The only disclosed constraint is position >= 0, which is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one clear action sentence followed by a simple list of arguments with type and constraint. No filler, front-loaded with the verb, and parameter details are directly relevant. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It specifies the marker type and position constraint, but it omits any mention of error behavior (e.g., invalid guid, out-of-range position) or success indication. Given the lack of annotations, more detail on expected outcomes or failure modes would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics: target is a 'Marker {guid}' (implying a string GUID), and position is 'New position in seconds (>= 0)' (numeric with a non-negative constraint). This adds value beyond the raw schema, but it is minimal and doesn't specify formats or edge cases, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Move a point-type marker (named marker, sustain point, transition marker) to a new timeline position.' It specifies the exact resource type and distinguishes from sibling operations like marker_set_region (for region markers) and marker_rename, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying the tool is for point-type markers, which implicitly excludes region markers (handled by marker_set_region). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not guidelines, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'set' without mentioning side effects (e.g., immediate application, global state change, persistence, or reversibility). It does not disclose any potential non-obvious behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, containing only essential information: action, target, unit, and range. No superfluous wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter behavior. However, it lacks details about return value or side effects, which would be expected for a setter operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'db' is described as 'Volume in decibels' and the valid range (-80 to +10) is explicitly given in the description. This provides sufficient semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('master bus volume'), with a specific parameter range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mixer_group_volume or vca_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage for setting the master bus volume, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use mixer_group_volume instead). However, the scope is clear enough for typical audio mixing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites existing labels), error conditions (e.g., parameter not found or wrong type), or any expected return value. Only a terse statement of the action is given, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence plus a compact argument list. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential parameter details without fluff, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description covers the basics but omits context that would improve safe usage: whether the parameter must already be of type UserEnumeration, what happens if label count mismatches, and what the tool returns (if anything). Given no output schema, some return behavior disclosure would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: event_target as 'event:/ path or {guid}', parameter_name as 'the parameter's name', and labels as 'Human-readable labels, in order' with an example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed (e.g., label count vs enum count).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set enumeration labels') and the resource ('UserEnumeration parameter'). It distinguishes from siblings like parameter_set_initial by focusing specifically on labels, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'enumeration labels' and the parameter type, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative parameter tools (e.g., parameter_set_initial) or provide prerequisites like the parameter must already exist. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Rename an instrument' without revealing any side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens if the target doesn't exist. It does add the context that target is a guid or path, but omits any mention of mutation implications or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single purpose statement and two-line argument list. It is front-loaded with the action, uses no filler words, and every word earns its place. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple rename tool, the description covers the basics but lacks important context: no mention of return values, error conditions, uniqueness requirements, or whether renaming affects references. Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in explaining behavioral outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'target: Instrument {guid} or path' and 'name: New name.' This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's bare type declarations. The explanation is clear, though it could mention constraints like uniqueness, but the provided semantics are adequate for this simple tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('an instrument'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling rename tools (event_set_name, snapshot_rename, bank_rename, mixer_group_rename) by specifying the instrument type. This is a specific verb+resource pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (for renaming instruments) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance like 'use event_set_name for events' or any exclusions. The resource type in the description provides implicit context, but no explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add the valid dB range and target path format, which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it doesn't disclose out-of-range behavior, idempotency, or failure modes — acceptable for a simple setter but not exemplary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences plus a two-line argument breakdown. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the volume range, and the target format. Nothing critical feels missing given the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does by explaining the target format ('vca:/ path or {guid}') and the db units/range. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it's concise rather than exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Set a VCA's volume') with a useful unit and range ('in dB (-80 .. +10)'), making the purpose immediately clear. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action is unmistakable and consistent with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by documenting both arguments and the target's accepted format ('vca:/ path or {guid}'), along with the valid volume range. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to nearby volume-related siblings like mixer_group_volume or vca_assign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (get current object) but does not discuss side effects, return format, or whether this is a read-only operation. However, for a getter with no parameters, the description is adequate—nothing is destroyed and no auth is implied. It adds a bit of context about the scope (project browser), but lacks details like what happens if nothing is selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It says exactly what the tool does with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple getter, the description is fairly complete. It could mention handling of the null case (nothing selected) or the return type, but the context complexity is low. Sibling tools exist, but the description clarifies its scope to the project browser.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100% (void schema) and parameters are absent, the baseline for zero params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the object currently selected in the project browser.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('object currently selected in the project browser'). It is distinguishable from siblings like workspace_info or workspace_navigate, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (querying the current selection), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like workspace_editor_selection or utility_lookup. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutational behavior. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., impact on references to the bank), required permissions, or reversibility. As a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two lines total—with no filler. Every sentence provides necessary parameter guidance, and the purpose is stated upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple rename operation with two parameters, the description covers the essential semantics. However, it lacks information about error handling, whether the operation is idempotent, or the provided output. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this only minimally complete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but the description fully explains both parameters: target as 'bank:/ path or {guid}' and name as 'New name'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Rename a bank' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bank_create or bank_delete. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (renaming a bank) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. For a simple rename operation, this is adequate but lacks any guidance on when renaming is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the operation (resolve) and output (canonical path and guid). However, it does not reveal error handling, whether it mutates state, or what happens for invalid targets, though this is acceptable for a simple lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is precisely one sentence plus a parameter definition. It is immediately clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter signature and no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it explains the purpose and what the input should be. A slight omission is the return format, but 'canonical event:/ path and guid' implies the output sufficiently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds important parameter semantics: 'A path (event:/...) or {guid}.' The schema only indicates a string, so this format detail is valuable. It covers the parameter fully, though it could be more specific about expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Resolve an event reference to its canonical event:/ path and guid.' This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like event_info and event_list by focusing on canonicalization of a reference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not state when to use this versus other event_* lookup tools, offering no exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only check (no side effects implied) and mentions it returns status and playhead position. However, it doesn't detail the exact return format or any potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if the event doesn't exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear usage hint and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the Args section is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the parameter format, and the use case. It could be improved by mentioning what the return value looks like, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter (target) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the format: 'event:// path or {guid}'. This is helpful but minimal; it doesn't explain the difference between the two formats or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks playback status (playing/paused/stopping) and timeline playhead position for an event instance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like event_play, event_stop, and event_toggle_pause by focusing on status validation rather than control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool to validate that a play/stop/pause call actually took effect, providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough given the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the action and parameter constraint (position >= 0), but does not mention side effects, such as whether scrubbing stops playback, if it's reversible, or if there are any restrictions on target format beyond the path/GUID. Lacks depth for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value. It's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two simple parameters, the description covers the core action and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on typical usage context or potential effects on playback state, leaving some ambiguity for agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds crucial information beyond the schema: target is specified as 'event:// path or {guid}' and position is 'Cursor position in seconds (>= 0)'. This clarifies the format and constraints, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Scrub' and identifies the resource as 'event's timeline cursor' to a position in seconds. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like event_play, event_stop, which control playback, and other event operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action and arguments, but there is no mention of scenarios where this is preferable or alternatives. The requirement of a position in seconds is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Move/resize') and enforces parameter constraints (position >= 0, length > 0), but it does not reveal potential side effects, failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible. It omits details about what happens if the target is invalid or if the marker is not a region-type, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally efficient: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean arg list with inline constraints. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details the parameters in a structured way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essentials: what it does and parameter meanings. However, it omits information about return values, error handling, potential exceptions, and any prerequisites (e.g., the marker must already exist as a region). Since there are many sibling tools, more context on when this tool is appropriate versus others would improve completeness, but the current description is minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so all parameter meaning must come from the description. The description adds value by specifying each parameter: target is a Region GUID, position is a new start in seconds with a lower bound, length is a new length in seconds with a positive bound. This clarifies types, units, and constraints beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Move/resize a region-type marker' and specifies the types (loop region, transition region). This distinguishes it from other marker tools like marker_set_position (which likely handles point markers) and marker_add_region (which creates a region). The verb and resource are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'region-type marker' and the types (loop/transition region), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like marker_set_position. There is no statement about prerequisites (e.g., marker must exist) or exclusions. The information is sufficient but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses the accepted dB range (-80 .. +10) and target format (path or {guid}), but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or what result the agent should expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the operation is stated in the first line, followed by a minimal Args block. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what to set, the target format, and the value range. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing expected return or alternative tool selection, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining target as 'Group path or {guid}' and db as 'Volume in decibels' with an explicit range. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the operation: 'Set a mixer group's volume, in dB (-80 .. +10).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mixer_master_volume and vca_volume by targeting mixer groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mixer_master_volume or vca_volume. It only lists arguments, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it adds little beyond the tool's name. It accurately conveys destructive intent and the mixer context, though it doesn't disclose consequences (e.g., cascading deletes, irreversibility, or effects on bound groups). It's sufficient but minimal—no contradiction, but no added depth either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact—a single sentence plus a short args block—with every word earning its place. Front-loaded with the core statement, then parameter details. Slightly more structure (e.g., MCP server context) would push it to a 5, but it's efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description is mostly adequate. No output schema exists and none is needed for a void operation. However, given zero annotations, a bit more context—like whether the operation is reversible or requires a refresh—would improve completeness. It's adequate but doesn't exceed minimum viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the target parameter as 'snapshot:/ path or {guid},' which provides meaningful format information beyond the schema's bare string type. It fully captures the two valid reference formats, though it could elaborate on what a guid refers to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Delete) and resource (mixer snapshot), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like snapshot_create, snapshot_info, and snapshot_rename. The one-sentence statement fully captures the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the verb+resource construction ('Delete a mixer snapshot'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. A clear context exists, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields (guid, name, path, hasAudioFile/audioFileName) and an important behavioral nuance: the check is not for the audio file's existence but for whether a SingleSound has an audio asset attached. It doesn't mention if the tool performs any side effects—but it's presumably read-only. It doesn't specify error conditions or performance. Given the lack of annotations, it provides some behavioral context but is not exhaustive; a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds context beyond a minimal statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first explains the primary purpose and return fields, the second explains a use case and provides an example of when to check. It is concise and front-loaded with the core function. The parameter description follows as an 'Args:' section. There is no fluff. The only minor deduction is that the first sentence is a bit long with a dash and parenthetical, but still clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return fields, the significance of hasAudioFile, and a practical scenario for using the tool. It doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the instrument was not found), but for a read-only lookup, this might not be critical. Given the complexity is low, the description is quite complete. The only gap is lack of error handling info, but that's not unusual for such tools. Overall, it exceeds the minimum viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameter fully. It does: 'target: Instrument {guid} or path.' This clarifies that the single required parameter accepts either an instrument guid or a path, which is not self-evident from the schema (which just says 'string'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property name 'target'. No other parameters exist, so the description compensates adequately. A score of 4 is justified because it provides syntax and acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieve an instrument's guid, name, path, and hasAudioFile status. The verb-phrase 'Get an instrument's...' is specific and identifies the resource (instrument/SingleSound). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'sound_set_audio_file' (which sets the file) and 'sound_info' logically complements that. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from a potential sibling like 'utility_info' or 'sound_get'—there is no such sibling, but several 'info' tools exist (e.g., 'event_info', 'mixer_group_info', 'bank_info') which share a naming pattern but are for different resource types; the description implies the resource type is Instrument/SingleSound, which differentiates it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it recommends checking after 'sound_set_audio_file' to verify the assignment stuck, which is a specific scenario. It also mentions the implication of no audio asset (empty box, silence), which helps when deciding to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools if the user just wants the guid/name (they could use utility_lookup or similar). It relies on the reader to infer that for audio-independent info, other tools might suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it is a long operation and that asset files are copied into the project, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing assets, permissions, or failure modes, leaving gaps in transparency given no annotations are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using two clear sentences plus a parameter list. No fluff or redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool: what it does, the return value (GUID) and its purpose, the parameter details, and a note on duration. Lacks only minor details like error handling or prerequisites, but is generally complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter file_path is thoroughly described: absolute path and supported file formats (.wav, .aiff, .flac, .mp3, .ogg). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic string type, covering all parameters fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it imports an audio file into the project as a reusable asset, and mentions returning a GUID for assignment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sound_create or asset management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions it is a long operation, but lacks comparative guidance such as 'use sound_create for immediate playback' or 'use this for reusable assets'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds one behavioral trait: the result is 'capped' (limited), which is useful. However, it does not specify the cap value, pagination behavior, or what exactly constitutes an 'event' in the return, leaving the agent to guess the practical limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence: 'List every event in the project (capped).' Every word earns its place; 'capped' is a necessary caveat. No filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the essentials but leaves the 'cap' ambiguous and does not indicate the output format (which matters because there is no output schema). The agent knows it will get a (possibly limited) list of events, but not the size limit, ordering, or whether it returns full event objects or just identifiers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and the input schema is empty, so no information is missing. The description does not conflict with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List every event') and the scope ('in the project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_lookup (specific event lookup) and event_list_tracks (tracks of an event). The parenthetical '(capped)' adds an important qualifier about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use this to get all events in the project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of alternative listing/lookup tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description itself provides the primary usage context but doesn't steer the agent away from or toward siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It notes the output includes mixer-group name and both GUIDs, but doesn't disclose error behavior, edge cases, or side effects. For a read-only listing, it's adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-sentence description plus a brief parameter list. Every word adds value; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Core information is present, but the return structure is only vaguely implied ('both guids each') and error behavior is not discussed. For a simple listing operation, it's mostly sufficient, but more detail on the exact return shape would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions and coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by documenting 'target' as event:// path or GUID and 'include_master' with its default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'List an event's group tracks' with explicit mention of output contents ('mixer-group name + both guids each'). Differentiates from sibling tools like event_list and mixer_group_info by focusing on tracks within an event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit exclusions or alternatives provided. The description implies it's for retrieving track-level details of an event, but doesn't contrast with related tools or state when to use this instead of another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core effect and argument constraints but does not reveal whether existing instances are stopped, whether the cap persists, what happens on invalid targets, or what the return value/error behavior is. This is a bare mutation description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a minimal Args block. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no repetition of schema fields or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: it names the action, target format, and valid voice range. Minor gaps remain around return behavior and effects on currently sounding instances, but these are less critical for a simple setter of this kind.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides types and titles, with 0% schema-described coverage. The description compensates fully: 'target' is explained as an event:// path or {guid}, and 'max_voices' is given a meaningful range of 1-1000 plus semantic context from the opening sentence about capping simultaneous instances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'cap' with a clear resource ('event') and attribute ('maxVoices'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling event_set_name/event_set_folder/event_play tools by focusing on limiting simultaneous instances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the purpose: use this when you need to limit how many instances of an event can sound simultaneously. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name or contrast any alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the action (save all edited files) but does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting behavior, permissions, or reversibility. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden but remains fairly straightforward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and is complete for a save-all operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description has nothing to add about parameter meanings. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as no parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool saves the project and every edited file, listing specific asset types. It distinguishes itself from simpler save operations by emphasizing comprehensive saving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a full save is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'project_save' or provide conditions for when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Create' without mentioning potential errors, permissions, or return values. The note about the Master bank hints at a limitation but does not specify behavior if the name already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, containing no unnecessary information and clearly separating the parameter explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the parameter adequately. It could mention behavior on duplicate names, but the note about Master partly addresses this. Overall, it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines one parameter 'name' with no description, but the description adds 'Bank name.' which clarifies its purpose. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though more constraints (e.g., uniqueness) are not provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a bank to hold events and sounds, distinguishing it from sibling operations like bank_list, bank_rename, and bank_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to use the tool (to create a new bank) and includes a note that the 'Master' bank always exists, providing a useful constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idempotent 'get-or-create' behavior, reuse of existing tracks, and indicates via 'reused' how the result is communicated. It does not mention failure modes or other side effects, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and argument details in a short 'Args' list. There is no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential behavior and the parameter format. The note about 'reused' hints at the return value. There is no additional complexity that demands more detail, so it is complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only says 'target' is a string with no other details. The description adds essential semantics: 'event:// path or {guid}', clarifying the allowed format for the single parameter. This meaningfully reduces ambiguity beyond the schema (coverage was 0%).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Get-or-create a marker (logic) track' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from generic 'event_add_track' by specifying the track type ('marker (logic)'). The term 'marker (logic) track' is slightly ambiguous, but the intent is clear from context and sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance to check existing tracks (via event_list_tracks-style state) before assuming a fresh track is needed, and clarifies that this tool is the preferred get-or-create path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and context-aware.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains the 'immediate' flag's impact on stopping (skipping vs honoring release/fade-out), which is useful, but it does not mention error handling, requirements (e.g., event must be playing), or side effects beyond the stop action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, uses a clear structure with an Args list, front-loads the purpose, and contains zero fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward stop operation, the description covers the core behavior and parameter details. It lacks information about return values or error states, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., event must be playing) explicitly, but the phrase 'playing event' implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to both parameters: target is clarified as an 'event:// path or {guid}', and 'immediate' is explained with its default value and behavioral nuance. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well done.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop a playing event instance') with a specific resource, and the mention of 'immediate' behavior differentiates it from other event controls like pause or return-to-start. It is unambiguous and precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the immediate parameter's effect but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like event_toggle_pause or event_key_off. The intended use is implied by the verb 'stop', but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get') and lists returned fields, but doesn't mention error behavior or that it doesn't modify state. However, given it's an info retrieval, the read nature is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with purpose and args. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple read tool, description lists output fields API is straightforward. Could mention error cases or relationship to mixer_group_list, but not necessary for a simple query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has only type string, no help. The description adds that target is 'Group path or {guid}', which clarifies acceptable formats. This is useful beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a mixer group's guid, name, path, and volume, using a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource (mixer group). It distinguishes from siblings like mixer_group_list (listing) and mixer_group_route (routing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage (fetch info about a single group) but provides no explicit when-not or alternative guidance. Sibling tools like mixer_group_list suggest alternatives, but the description doesn't clarify when to use this vs. listing all groups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a critical behavioral hazard (potential crash) when routing across surfaces, which is crucial for an agent to avoid misuse. Since no annotations are provided, this carries full weight. It also implies mutation (routing changes connections) but doesn't explicitly state it. Despite that, the warning is a significant disclosure beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with clear args as Args block has each parameter, which is concise and concise no format, but the details the format details are no details on the parameters that are not in the description is not surprising, but the description is good for 0% coverage baseline 4 because it provides no guidance from schema. The description lacks examples of the parameters but no schema coverage includes the parameters covered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adds implicit context, but the coverage is high on the complexity of the schema lacks details, but the parameters are no alternative to the description, but the answer is 4. For a tool that covers 0% schema coverage, it adequately describes the purpose but no output schema. The description is incomplete — missing parameter syntax or examples — but adequate for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameters. The description provides a brief explanation for both parameters: target is the group path/GUID, and output_target is destination bus/group path/GUID. This adds meaning, but since schema lacks details like format for paths, it is incomplete. It explains the parameter names but no syntax clues; however, the schema has no descriptions, so this covers the gap adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Route a group's output to a bus or group.' It uses a specific verb ('route') and resource ('group's output'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mixer_group_rename or mixer_group_volume. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, but the primary function is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a specific warning about when NOT to use this tool: 'Keep routing inside the same event/mixer surface — routing an event's master track into a different event's mixer has been known to crash Studio.' This gives clear context on safe usage. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when to choose this over other routing tools (though there's no direct alternative).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists the fields returned. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose return structure, value types, or edge-case behavior such as whether the master bus always exists or how volume is represented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the returned fields with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters and no output schema—the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape or volume units, but for a no-argument getter it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('master bus') and the exact data returned ('guid, name and volume'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mixer_master_volume and mixer_group_info by focusing on master bus metadata rather than volume control or group info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when you need the master bus's guid, name, or volume. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like mixer_master_volume or mixer_group_info, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only check ('check whether') with no side effects, but it does not disclose the return value format (e.g., boolean) or define what counts as 'unsaved changes'. With no annotations, more behavioral detail would be helpful, though the basic nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the entire purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention the return type (e.g., true/false) but is otherwise adequate for a straightforward check operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds semantic clarity by explaining the tool's purpose, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('whether the project has unsaved changes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_save or project_get_info. It is unambiguous and concise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: one would call this to determine if there are unsaved changes before deciding to save. However, no explicit guidance or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer when to use it versus other project-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies non-destructive read, and the listed return fields (guid, name, path) add value, but it doesn't explicitly state non-mutating behavior, error conditions, or what happens for invalid targets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The Args line earns its place by documenting format. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the input format and the return contents adequately. A bit more on failure/edge behavior or format of guid would round it out, but it's complete for the operation's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate—and it does: 'target: snapshot:/ path or {guid}' clarifies the accepted URI scheme and format, adding real meaning beyond the bare string type. Slightly more detail (e.g., examples or matching semantics) would push it to 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Get a snapshot's guid, name and path" uses a specific verb+resource and names the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from siblings like snapshot_list (which lists snapshots) and snapshot_rename/snapshot_delete (which mutate). Intended scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a read-only query use case and the target docstring clarifies input format, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., how it differs from snapshot_list or the lookup utilities). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: results are capped. However, it does not specify the cap size, ordering, or whether the list includes placeholder/empty snapshots, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core action, scope, and an important caveat. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description is largely complete. It names the resource and flags the cap. It could mention the output format or what the cap is, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a competent agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description accurately indicates the tool takes no arguments and simply lists snapshots, earning the zero-parameter baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('every mixer snapshot in the project'). The parenthetical '(capped)' adds a useful scope qualifier, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like snapshot_info or snapshot_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving all mixer snapshots, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as snapshot_info or mixer_group_list, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly warns 'destructive and not undoable from the terminal,' which is critical safety information. It adds value beyond the schema, though it does not discuss potential cascading effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear warning and a single argument explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is front-loaded for safety. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does, the target format, and the destructive nature. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool, though additional guidance about when to prefer it over specific delete tools would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only describes 'target' as a string with no description. The description adds useful semantics by stating the valid formats: 'Object path or {guid}.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent construct proper inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete any object from the project.' The verb 'delete' is specific, the resource is defined, and the phrase 'any object' distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific object types (e.g., event_delete, marker_delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explain when to use this generic delete tool versus the many specific delete tools available (event_delete, snapshot_delete, bank_delete). 'Delete any object' implies broad applicability, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and it specifies the returned fields (guid, name, volume in dB), but it does not explicitly state permissions, error behavior, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich, warranting a mid-range score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a single line for the argument. No filler or redundant information, making it efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return values (guid, name, volume) and the target format. It does not address potential errors or invalid targets, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete. Slightly more detail on edge cases could push it to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' accepts a vca:/ path or a {guid}, adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema. This sufficiently clarifies the parameter format, though it lacks examples or edge-case details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a VCA's guid, name, and current volume in dB, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like vca_list (likely lists all VCAs) and vca_volume (likely alters volume) by focusing on read-only info retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (to get details of a specific VCA), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like vca_list or vca_volume. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the notable 'capped' behavior, which is useful, but does not explain the cap's size, ordering, or what is included in each listed item. This is partial transparency rather than complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the key caveat ('capped'). There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, the action, and a notable limitation. The only gap is the unspecified cap and return format, but the simple nature of the operation keeps this from being a major omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the tool's simple function.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('every VCA in the project'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vca_create, vca_info, and vca_volume by signaling an enumeration operation rather than a mutation or single-item lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this when you need to enumerate all VCAs in the project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like vca_info or vca_volume, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates a read-only 'Get' operation and identifies the outputs, but it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., no workspace open), side effects, or the exact structure of the returned roots. For a simple getter this is minimally viable but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action and the specific deliverables clearly, making excellent use of space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the tool's purpose and expected return value at a conceptual level. It could be more explicit about whether 'roots' are file paths or object references, but it provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema fully defines the input. No additional parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the workspace's key roots'), enumerating the exact items returned (event/asset/bank roots and the master bus). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_browser_current or mixer_master_info which target different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: you would use this tool when you need the fundamental root paths of the workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives exist (e.g., mixer_master_info for master bus details), leaving the agent to infer the tool's specific niche among many info-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'capped' discloses a behavioral detail—results are limited—but does not explain the cap's magnitude or what happens when exceeded. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and a key qualifier in only eight words. There is no unnecessary information, making it a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and trivial state, the description covers the essential contract: it lists imported audio assets with a cap. No additional context (e.g., return format) is required for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('imported audio assets in the project'), and adds the qualifier '(capped)' to clarify scope. It is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'audio_import' or 'sound_info' by focusing on listing assets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (use this to list audio assets) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or conditional recommendations are given, so it stops at an implied usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects like 'or start a new one' and the reuse rule, but it does not mention return values, error conditions, or what happens if a point already exists at the same position. It is informative but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a two-sentence behavioral summary followed by a five-line Args list. Every line adds distinct information, with no fluff or repetition of schema titles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior and all parameter semantics, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it would be stronger if it noted expected return value or failure behavior, and it does not directly position itself against automation_add_curve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the Args block fully compensates by explaining every parameter: target types, property enum values, driver format, driver_type options, position meaning, and value meaning. This is essential semantic information beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add one point to an existing curve (or start a new one).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling automation_add_curve by emphasizing single-point addition, and it also explains reuse with 'Same target/driver/property reuses the matching curve.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context—use it to add a point or start a new curve—and explains reuse behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like automation_add_curve or automation_list. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses the duplicate-name error condition ('Errors if a marker with this name already exists on the track') and confirms it creates rather than updates or deletes. It doesn't cover auth requirements, rate limits, or the behavior when the track_target does not exist. Non-destructive action is evident (adding a marker).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three clearly separated sections, compact 50-word description, and a clean args block. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sibling context provides a rich marker namespace. No output schema (but acceptable for an add action); no authentication, rate-limit, or track-existence precondition. Track_target description compensates partly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema is sparse (0% coverage). Description adds a little: 'track_target: Marker track {guid} from event_add_marker_track' provides some provenance, and 'position: Timeline position (seconds) >= 0' restates the schema. No constraints on the GUID, no default, and the fields are only lightly described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb 'add' and resource 'named marker', with 'destination' semantics that distinguish it from sibling marker_add_transition, marker_add_region, and marker_add_sustain_point. The error-if-duplicate behavior is explicitly stated, and the alternative marker_list is named. This is a clear and distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states using marker_list first to check for duplicates, providing a sequential alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., for adding transition markers or sustain points), nor does it specify the prerequisite that the marker track must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect (jumping to destination) and parameter constraints (position >=0, length >0). However, it does not mention side effects like whether the transition replaces an existing one, reversibility, or any required permissions. This is adequate but not rich, similar to the update_drive example but slightly better due to explicit constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences followed by a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and behavior, and every line provides essential information with no fluff. The structure is clear and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a mutation tool: it explains the trigger condition, the destination target, and all parameter constraints. It references related entities (marker track, NamedMarker, LoopRegion). It does not need to describe return values since there is no output schema. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit alternatives, but the tool's usage is well-specified. Given the complexity and sibling tools, this is highly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is0%, and the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with meaning and constraints: track_target is a GUID from event_add_marker_track, position is start in seconds >=0, length is region length >0, destination_target is a GUID of NamedMarker or LoopRegion. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare types in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a transition region' with an explanation of its behavior ('while playback is inside this range, the timeline jumps to the given destination'). This verb+object+behavior is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like marker_add_region (plain region) and marker_add_transition (likely a point transition).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (adding a transition region) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as marker_add_region or marker_add_transition. It also does not provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond referencing the marker track GUID. While the behavior is clear, there is no direct guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a useful side effect: objects routed through the group will need re-routing afterwards. However, it does not explicitly state permanence, irreversibility, failure conditions, or return behavior, which would be valuable for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact and well structured: a one-line purpose, a crucial warning, and the argument definition. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the target format, and an important consequence. It could additionally note that the delete is permanent or irreversible, but the warning about re-routing covers the most material side effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines target as a required string, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by documenting the parameter as 'Group path or {guid}', adding critical semantic meaning beyond the schema. This covers the only parameter completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a mixer group.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mixer_group_rename, mixer_group_info, and mixer_group_route, which perform different operations on mixer groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by 'Delete a mixer group' and the warning about objects needing re-routing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as utility_delete, nor any conditions or exclusions. No alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the core action and a conditional behavior (stopped instances go to timeline start), which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether playback is affected) or error cases, so it's not exhaustive but adequate for a single-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one main sentence and a single-line Args section. It front-loads the action and includes only necessary details, with no wasted words. Perfectly sized for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter format. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases or errors, but that's acceptable given the low complexity. The behavior for stopped instances is explicitly handled, which adds completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'target' parameter (0% coverage), but the description supplies essential format guidance: 'target: event:// path or {guid}.' This adds meaning beyond the raw string type, giving the agent enough to construct a valid argument. It doesn't fully explain all accepted formats but is sufficient for a simple parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Return a playing/paused/stopping event instance's timeline playback position to the cursor (or to the timeline start, if the instance is stopped).' This uses a specific verb (return/reset) and a clear resource (timeline playback position), distinguishing it from sibling tools like event_play or event_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (for playback position reset) by naming the applicable states (playing/paused/stopping) and the special case for stopped instances, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient for basic use but lacks explicit comparisons to other event control tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It explains the primary effect (jump to destination) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing markers, idempotency) or error handling for invalid GUIDs. It provides context about argument origins, but not the full behavioral profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first explains purpose and behavior, second lists parameters with brief explanations. Front-loaded with the key insight (jump to destination). No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core usage, including parameter origins and position constraint, and clarifies the destination type. It doesn't discuss edge cases like invalid targets or idempotency, but for a simple add operation this is adequate. The lack of output schema is acceptable as the tool likely returns a confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: track_target's origin (from event_add_marker_track), position constraint (>= 0), and destination_target's source types (NamedMarker or LoopRegion). This goes beyond the schema's titles and helps the agent understand argument semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a transition marker' and explains the behavior: 'when playback crosses this point, the timeline jumps to the given destination.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinctly separates it from sibling tools like marker_add_named or marker_add_region, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on what the tool does and references where the track_target and destination_target GUIDs come from (events/marker tools). It implies when to use it (for jump transitions) but does not explicitly contrast with other marker tools or state when not to use it. Still, the behavior is specific enough to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the downstream effect of binding ('later mixer edits while the snapshot is armed capture into that snapshot'), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return behavior, failure modes, idempotency, or prerequisites such as whether the group/snapshot must already exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. It front-loads the core action, adds a useful explanatory paragraph about binding semantics, and ends with a terse Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concept, effect, and argument formats well. It could be more complete by explaining what happens if a binding already exists or if targets are invalid, but the essential usage context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only parameter names, so the description must add meaning. It does: snapshot_target is 'snapshot:/ path or {guid}' and group_target is 'bus:/ or mixer group path/{guid}'. This gives the agent concrete target format guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence uses a specific verb and both resources: 'Bind a mixer group's captured settings to a snapshot.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling snapshot and mixer group tools, as none of them perform this binding action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the intended scenario: binding establishes that a group owns a setting in a snapshot so edits while armed are captured. It gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the reuse behavior: 'Reuses an existing curve ... rather than creating a duplicate,' implying it creates a new curve if none exists. It also explains how driver_type alters the interpretation of points (parameter value vs. seconds). However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are minor gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose and a concrete example, then a key behavioral note, then a bulleted Args section that covers all five parameters. Each sentence adds necessary information with no fluff, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers parameter semantics, the reuse behavior, and the driver-type nuance, which is substantial. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator or curve ID) or any prerequisites like whether the referenced driver must already exist. These gaps are not blocking for invocation but leave some uncertainty, so a 4 is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains each param: target specifies valid GUID types and warns against using trackGuid, property lists allowed values, driver distinguishes parameter vs event forms, driver_type clarifies the two modes, and points explains the structure and position semantics depending on driver_type. This exceeds schema-level documentation significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Bind a property to a curve so it changes as the driver changes', immediately clarifying what the tool does. It further distinguishes itself from automation_list by noting the reuse behavior and advising to call automation_list first if unsure about an existing curve, so an agent can differentiate sibling tools without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one explicit usage heuristic: 'call automation_list first if unsure whether one's already there,' which is helpful for avoiding duplicates. However, it does not contrast this tool against automation_add or other automation-related siblings, nor does it state when this tool is preferred over alternatives. The guidance is present but minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the behavioral outcome (plays the event, allowing auditory verification) beyond the annotations (which are absent). It does not mention side effects like muting other events or blocking behavior, but for a simple playback action, the provided transparency is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement and an argument section. It avoids unnecessary details while conveying essential information. Slightly more context about expected behavior or side effects could improve it, but it is above average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description includes a motivational note ('instead of guessing from the event tree') and explains the target format. With only one parameter and no output schema, the context is sufficient for most use cases. It could mention failure modes or effects on other audio, but it is complete enough for basic selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'target' is described in the description as 'event:// path or {guid}', providing format and examples. The schema itself lacks a description, but the tool description adequately clarifies the expected value. No enums or nested objects, so the single parameter is well explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Play an event instance — the equivalent of pressing play in FMOD Studio's transport controls.' It specifies the action (play) and the resource (event instance), and distinguishes it from siblings like event_stop, event_toggle_pause, and event_playback_status by explaining the concrete outcome ('actually hear a result').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool ('when you want to hear the result'), and contrasts with guessing from the event tree, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. However, given the clear sibling list, the usage context is adequately conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond just saying 'adds' by explaining structural verification (produces valid TransitionTimeline with bound child objects, confirmed via isValid:false without them) and what crossfade_length does (overlaps by seconds, making FMOD blend them). It also discloses limitations: the exact blend hasn't been audibly verified and there's no scripted way to listen, which is honest about behavior. It misses some things like whether it's idempotent or what happens on failure, but given the depth of disclosure, a 4 is justified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long, but every sentence adds value: the first sentence defines purpose, the second provides structural verification and a caveat, the third describes parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (repeating 'source+destination sound pair'), but overall it's dense and not padded. Could be slightly tighter, but it's structured well with a clear Args block.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a feature that creates crossfades and requires specific bindings) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains what is created, correct binding requirements, how timing works, and what to do if the blend is wrong. It doesn't mention potential failure modes for invalid inputs beyond the structural verification, but for an agent, this is sufficient to call correctly. Minor gaps like whether it modifies or replaces existing timelines, but overall it's close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself does not describe parameters in text—only names and types. The description compensates significantly: it explains transition_target (guid of the target marker/region type), audio_track_target (the track being looped), and crossfade_length (overlap in seconds, default 1, must be >0, larger = smoother). It adds meaning beyond the raw names, but there are only 3 params and they are fully explained, so this is strong relative to baseline. However the tool has 'Args:' section not in the formal schema, so the description is the primary source, earning a 4. But the calibration note says baseline 3 for high coverage—here coverage is 0%, so it must compensate, and it does. I'll set a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a transition timeline to specific marker/region types, with a source+destination sound pair, matching FMOD's 'Add Transition Timeline' feature. It distinguishes this from a hard cut and names the animation targets (transition marker/region/loop region/magnet region), which helps separate it from sibling tools like marker_add_transition or marker_add_transition_region, even though those siblings likely do similar things.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use it (to add a crossfaded transition instead of a hard jump-cut, the professional technique for a seamless loop), and even notes limitations ('there's no scripted way to listen from here; audition in Studio'). It directly implies the alternative is a hard cut or using other transition tools, and instructs adjusting crossfade_length if the blend isn't right, which is practical usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the returned contents ('every curve's guid, the driver parameter it's bound to, and its actual [position, value] points') and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state that no project state is modified or cover edge/error behavior, but it is reasonably transparent for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a short Args list. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the inputs and what the result will contain. It stops short of a 5 because it does not mention response wrapping/order, behavior when no automation exists, or an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the Args block fully compensates by defining target as 'The automated object (mixer group, bus, VCA, event)' and property as restricted to 'volume' | 'pitch' | 'gain' with default 'volume'. This provides the semantic meaning that the input schema entirely lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('automation curves + points on a target's automator'), and details exactly what is returned: curve guid, driver parameter, and [position, value] points. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like automation_add_curve and automation_add.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the usage context clear: use this to inspect the real automation curves for a given property on a target. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the read-vs-write distinction relative to the automation_add siblings is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals side effects (creating a track and mixer group), describes the return of two distinct GUIDs, and warns about the visual/behavioral separation. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, which are minor gaps here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: the opening line sums purpose, the second explains return values, and the Args block clarifies parameters without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fully adequate: it covers purpose, usage, return values, and param semantics. The missing output schema is compensated by the detailed return-value explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the target as an event:// path or {guid} and defines the optional name as a mixer-group name with a default, adding some value beyond raw schema names. It covers 100% of parameters, but the syntax details are thin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a group (audio) track to an event's timeline, using specific action verbs and resource nouns. It exceeds the name by explaining the dual GUID return, which fully distinguishes it from siblings like event_add_marker_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use trackGuid versus mixerGroupGuid, referencing specific sibling tools (sound_add_to_track, automation_add_curve, mixer_group_volume, mixer_effect_add) and noting the constraint that a track has no addAutomator(). It also explains the target format, providing clear context, alternatives, and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the playback holds until a keyoff command releases it, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects or error conditions (e.g., invalid track_target), leaving a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, using two short paragraphs and an example. No redundant or verbose wording is present, and the structure is clear and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It does not mention output schema (which is absent) or prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity means these omissions are not critical. The example and reference to keyoff provide sufficient context for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are well-described: track_target is identified as a GUID from event_add_marker_track, and position is given as 'Timeline position in seconds (>= 0)'. The description adds meaningful context beyond the plain schema properties, which only provide titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Add a sustain point') and explains its function: playback holds at the point until a keyoff event releases it. It also differentiates this from other marker actions like 'add_region' or 'add_transition' by specifying the sustain behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context ('Used for loop-until-released sounds') and a concrete example ('a footstep that holds mid-loop until the game says "stop"'). It implies when to use this tool vs. alternatives, though it does not explicitly compare with other marker tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions the 200-item cap and that results are tagged with type, but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or read-only. However, 'list' inherently implies no side effects, so the transparency is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and directly states the function and key constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently hints at the return format (list of markers with types and a 200 limit) without needing to explain return values in detail. It does not cover error scenarios, but that is acceptable for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, track_target, is well described as 'Marker track {guid} from event_add_marker_track', providing context about its format and origin. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema's generic 'Track Target' label.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing markers, regions, sustains, and transitions on a marker track, with a cap of 200 and tagging by type. It uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from other marker operations like add or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to enumerate all markers on a track, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of marker_add'). The context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself conveys key behavior: it creates a return track plus send, is per-event only, and notes that event_target owns both the source group and the new return. It also discloses level range and default. Minor gaps remain around error/return behavior, but core side effects are transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A two-sentence overview plus a tight argument list. The 'shared reverb bus' example earns its place by clarifying intent, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers action, scope, all parameter meanings, and the optional parameter's default/range, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional documentation. Because there is no output schema or annotations, a short note about expected response/error behavior would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are described in plain language, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It includes accepted path/GUID formats, ownership semantics, the meaning of return_name, and the range/default for level_db.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Create a return track + send within one event's mixer' and gives a concrete use case ('shared reverb bus'). The 'Per-event only — no cross-event/global send here' clause distinguishes it from broader send/routing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly scopes use to a single event's mixer and warns against expecting cross-event/global sends. It does not name an alternative tool for global sends, but the when-not guidance is clear enough for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool tries a couple of plausible assignment names and raises a clear error instead of silently doing nothing. It also explains the effect on the VCA's fader. It doesn't mention permissions or reversibility, but the error-handling behavior is a meaningful disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short paragraphs: a clear purpose sentence, a brief note on error handling, and an Args section. No redundancy; each sentence adds unique value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the operation, parameter formats, and error behavior. It lacks an explicit mention of return value (though no output schema exists, so not required). Given the simple two-parameter assignment tool, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides type: string with no descriptions. The description compensates by defining both parameters: vca_target is a 'vca:/ path or {guid}' and strip_target is a 'Mixer group/bus path or {guid} to assign.' This gives the agent the format and semantics needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Assign a mixer strip (group/bus) to a VCA' and explains the effect ('the VCA's fader scales it alongside every other strip assigned to it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vca_create or vca_volume, as assignment is a unique operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: when you want to attach a mixer strip to a VCA. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose clearly distinguishes it from other VCA/mixer tools. The note about FMOD's ambiguous docs provides context on the tool's approach, though no direct comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses idempotency ('safe to call repeatedly, reuses existing folders') and the specific failure mode for AssetFolder ('errors clearly rather than no-op'ing'). It does not mention return values or side effects beyond creation, but that is not essential for this tool's usage. Overall, it provides key behavioral context beyond what a schema would offer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first line immediately states the primary behavior and idempotency. The Args list is compact and directly addresses each parameter with necessary details. There is no fluff or redundant terminology; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the core behavior (find-or-create), the parameter formats and constraints, the failure mode for AssetFolder, and the idempotent nature. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of complex side effects, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so comprehensively: 'kind' is explained with valid values (EventFolder | AssetFolder) and a caveat about AssetFolder's non-creatability, while 'path' is defined with a format ('Slash-separated') and an example. This fully clarifies the meaning and constraints of both parameters, adding significant value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find-or-create a folder chain' with an example ('UI/HUD' resolves/creates UI then HUD). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from other folder-related tools by emphasizing creation and idempotency. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, it is clear from context that it is the designated tool for folder creation. The note that AssetFolder isn't creatable and errors clearly sets usage expectations. Since there is no other folder-create tool among siblings, the guidance is sufficient and implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description includes an important caveat about the presetOwner relationship, telling the agent not to read '.name' directly on getParameterPresets(). This behavioral hint adds value beyond the schema and is a good technical clarification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, two sentences plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, includes a critical caveat, and specifies the input format concisely. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the format of the target, and an important implementation detail. No additional context is necessary for the agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, event_target, is described as 'event:/ path or {guid}'. This adds semantic detail beyond the schema's generic title 'Event Target', which the agent needs to know to construct a valid argument.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists an event's game parameters, specifically name and guid. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parameter_add and parameter_set_initial, and there is no other list tool with this exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context: it lists parameters for an event. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool set includes parameter_add/set_initial, so the usage context is fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the duplicate error and the two use cases (runtime settable and automation target). It doesn't describe side effects like reverting or permissions, but for a creation tool this is acceptable. The primary behavioral trait (error on duplicate) is well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the key purpose and error behavior, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. The structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, duplicate handling, parameter semantics, and downstream usage. It also references related tools for alternative scenarios, making it complete for a typical agent workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does 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 all 5 parameters. It does: event_target format, name purpose, param_type enumeration, and min/max defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Add' with resource 'game parameter to an event' explicitly scopes the operation. It distinguishes from parameter_set_initial and parameter_list by noting it errors on duplicates, so agents know this is for creating new parameters, not modifying existing ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states the error condition (duplicate name) and directs to alternatives (parameter_set_initial/parameter_list) for existing parameters. Also explains the runtime and timeline implications, giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains what the tool returns (plain properties with values, relationships with cardinality and count), gives a concrete example ('looping'), and notes that FMOD's dump() returns nothing here, which is transparent about its behavior versus alternatives.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose and usage, includes a parenthetical example for clarity, and ends with a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only introspection tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what the parameter means. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'target' has no description in the schema. The description compensates with 'Object path or {guid}', providing essential format details. This is exactly the kind of added meaning needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs 'real introspection' of a live object's plain properties and relationships, with specific details on what is included. The description distinguishes this from FMOD's own dump() and clarifies it returns data here, unlike FMOD's console-only logging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using the tool 'BEFORE concluding a capability doesn't exist' and contrasts it with FMOD's documentation and dump() behavior, which is direct when-to-use guidance. This is superior to merely implying usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xDarkzx/Dans_Fmod_Studio_MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server