get_track_info

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 does not mention any side effects, permissions, or what 'detailed information' includes. It doesn't state whether the tool is read-only or if it might fail for certain track types. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a parameter list, which is helpful. However, it repeats the parameter name and type from the schema, which is redundant. The structure is clear, but the parameter section could be integrated more efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is an output schema (though not shown in the input), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the tool is part of a large set of Ableton control tools, and the description lacks context about what 'detailed information' includes, how it relates to other getters, or any limitations. The description is minimal and doesn't provide enough context for an agent to know when to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description includes a parameter section that explains 'track_index: Track number (1-based).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only lists the type and title. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a valid track index (e.g., range, handling of out-of-bounds) or how the index relates to the track order. With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description provides some value but could be more detailed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific track in Ableton.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('track information'), and the tool name 'get_track_info' aligns well. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_track_volume' and 'get_track_deletion_status' by focusing on general track info, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over other getters like 'get_track_volume' or 'get_session_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, such as needing a valid track index or that it works only in session view.

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