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 says the tool returns track state and every clip, but does not state that it is read-only, whether it has side effects, how large the response may be, or what the return shape looks like.

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 extremely short and front-loads the key scope: track state and all clips. It has no wasted text, though it is a sentence fragment rather than a fully structured description.

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 getter, the description gives enough to know it retrieves track state and clips. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it is only minimally complete: it does not expand on what 'state' includes or how clips are represented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both required parameters, including the video/audio enum and 0-based track index. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 phrase 'A track's state and every clip on it' clearly identifies the resource (a track) and what is retrieved (state plus all clips). It is more specific than a bare name restatement, but it does not name sibling tools or explicitly distinguish itself from get_timeline_clips, get_clip_info, or get_track_volume.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_timeline_clips, find_clips, or get_clip_info. The description implies a track-level retrieval use case but provides no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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