automation_list

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.