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 a critical behavioral trait: 'NOT fully transactional in Phase 5; returns progress and failed_at/error if a step fails.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent handle partial failures. Missing details on idempotency or side effects prevent a 5.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and resource, then usage context, then a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return values ('progress and failed_at/error'), which is sufficient. It covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral caveat. Missing explicit return structure details, but overall complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameters adequately. The description adds 'with optional overrides' but this is already implied by the schema's optional field. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Apply an embedded recipe by id with optional overrides'. It specifies the resource (recipe) and the context ('Use after list_recipes when the user asks for a genre pattern, rack, mix chain, or arrangement scaffold'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_recipes.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use after list_recipes when the user asks for...') but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond list_recipes. The context is clear and helpful, earning a 4.

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

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

Discloses non-idempotence: 'NOT idempotent: repeated calls add more points.' Also mentions the return value. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it effectively covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences clearly front-loaded with the main purpose and key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, idempotency, and return, but lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., valid track_index range) and behavior when adding a point at an existing time (overwrite? merge?). No output schema to compensate, leaving some gaps.

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 only 40% (parameter_path and time have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what's in the schema; it merely repeats the parameter_path format. For parameters like value and curve_type, no additional context is provided. Compensation is insufficient given low 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?

Description clearly states the action (add one automation point), the location (Arrangement view), and the target parameter type (mixer or device parameter path). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific automation operation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for incremental arrangement automation edits,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of incremental edits and the sibling list imply it's the only automation point addition tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and describes behavior when browser access is unavailable ('returns available=false with a reason'), but does not detail the return format of the categories list.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and edge-case behavior without extraneous information.

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?

The description does not specify the return format for a successful call (e.g., array of category names), which would be helpful without an output schema. The edge case is well explained, but completeness is slightly lacking.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the tool's purpose, but no parameter-specific details are necessary.

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 specifies the tool provides a 'read-only list of root categories' for the 'Ableton Live Browser', clearly stating the verb (list) and resource (root categories), and distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_load_item.

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 tool explicitly advises using it 'before loading instruments, effects, presets, or samples by browser path', providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it, but given no other similar tools, this is sufficient.

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

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

Discloses idempotency and best-effort behavior, explains return values (changed=true/false with item info). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; covers key behavioral traits without mentioning 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only two sentences, front-loaded with main action, then details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, description fully explains return behavior. Covers purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, and behavioral traits adequately for a simple tool.

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?

Single parameter 'path' is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining its use in the context of browser navigation and the types of items loaded.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb (Load), resource (Ableton Browser item), and context (onto selected/armed track). It lists example item types and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_get_categories.

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?

Explicitly states to use after browser_get_categories/path discovery, providing clear sequential context. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use but the context is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description does a good job disclosing non-idempotency ('NOT idempotent: repeated calls append notes') and return behavior ('returns added count and verification diff if the count does not match'). It does not cover all possible behaviors but adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff. Every sentence adds unique value (action, usage context, behavior, return).

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?

The description covers non-idempotency and return format but lacks parameter explanations and error details. No output schema exists, so the return description helps, but parameter guidance is missing for a tool with 3 required params and nested objects.

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%, and the description only mentions 'ADR-0003 note fields' without explaining parameters like track_index, clip_slot_index, or the notes structure. The agent must infer meaning from schema types alone, which is insufficient.

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 action 'Add MIDI notes to an existing session clip' and specifies the resource (MIDI notes to a session clip). It implies the clip exists by saying 'Use after creating or locating the target clip', which differentiates it from creating a clip (e.g., sibling create_midi_clip), though not explicitly.

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 mentions using the tool after creating or locating the target clip, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: idempotency for already-playing clips (returning 'changed=false') and async playback state with unverified verification. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable context beyond the tool name. It does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites, but the disclosed details are helpful.

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 three sentences long, which is concise and front-loads the main purpose. However, it lacks structure for easy scanning and omits important parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, but the omission of parameter info reduces overall efficiency.

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?

The description explains the action and key behaviors (idempotency, async playback) but does not cover return value structure, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, clip slot must contain a clip). Without an output schema, more detail on outputs would improve completeness. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 does not mention the parameters 'track_index' and 'clip_slot_index' at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent must infer their meaning from the parameter names alone, which are generic and could be ambiguous. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 triggers a session clip slot for launching a specific clip in Session view. It uses specific verbs ('trigger', 'launch') and resource ('session clip slot'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clip_stop' or 'scene_fire', which share similar contexts.

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 includes a usage condition: 'Use when the user wants to launch a specific clip in Session view.' This provides basic context but does not explain when not to use the tool or mention alternatives (e.g., 'clip_stop' to stop, 'scene_fire' to launch a scene). No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states non-idempotence for partial edits and return of point count and verification diff. However, it doesn't explain side effects like destruction of existing points or prerequisites.

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?

Two concise sentences. First delivers purpose and usage, second adds critical caveats and return value. No wasted words.

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?

Covers usage context, behavioral notes, and return values. Lacks details on what happens with empty points array or validation, but schema covers point structure adequately.

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 coverage is only 25% (only parameter_path has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving three parameters without semantic guidance beyond the schema.

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 'Replace all automation points for one clip envelope', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'arrangement_add_automation_point' which adds a single point.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants a complete envelope rewrite' and notes 'NOT idempotent for partial edits', giving clear usage context without naming alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency ('Idempotent within 1e-4') and field preservation ('verified against only the fields provided'), but does not mention side effects, required permissions, 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two sentences with zero wasted words. The most important information (action, resource, key behavior) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of index parameters, error conditions, return values, and potential side effects. A more complete description would include usage notes for indices and validation.

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%, but description adds value by explaining that omitted fields are preserved and that the tool is idempotent. However, it does not explain track_index and clip_slot_index (required) or provide format details for loop_start and loop_end.

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?

Description clearly states the action (configure), the resource (clip), and specific fields (loop_start, loop_end, looping). The verb 'configure' and resource 'clip' are precise, and the tool is distinct from siblings like clip_set_envelope or clip_set_name.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for clip loop edits after locating the clip,' providing a clear usage context. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternative tools, the instruction is sufficient for proper invocation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: idempotency, read-after-write verification, return of changed flag, and before/after names. No contradictions or missing safety info.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, usage guideline, and behavioral info with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, then supporting details.

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?

Covers prerequisite, idempotency, return fields (before/after names, changed flag). Missing explicit mention of return structure or edge cases, but sufficient for typical use. No output schema, so description carries the burden, and it does so well.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how track and slot indices locate the clip and that 'name' is the new name. Given 0% schema coverage, this compensates well, but could specify constraints like allowed characters or length.

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 verb 'rename' and the resource 'session clip' with indexing method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clip_set_envelope or clip_set_loop.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use after confirming the target clip exists' as a prerequisite, and mentions idempotency behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives.

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

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

Discloses idempotence and return behavior (changed=false, async marking). No annotations exist, so description carries burden; could mention prerequisites like transport state.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core action and purpose.

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?

Covers usage and behavior, but missing parameter explanations for a tool with two required inputs. Acceptable but not fully informative.

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 coverage 0% and description does not explain track_index or clip_slot_index parameters. No additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Explicit verb 'stop' and resource 'clip slot', distinguishes from global transport stop. Also mentions idempotency and return behavior.

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?

States when to use: 'halt one clip without stopping the global transport'. Lacks explicit alternatives, but sibling tools like 'stop' and 'clip_fire' provide context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-idempotence, undo step, and verification by returned clip length/name. However, it does not specify what happens when slot is occupied (error or overwrite) or other side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and usage. Efficient but could be slightly more structured; e.g., separating usage from behavioral notes.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. Covers core purpose and key behavior but misses parameter explanations and error handling details. Not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. It only indirectly mentions 'name' via verification, but does not explain track_index, clip_slot_index, or length_beats. No parameter details are added beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Create an empty MIDI clip in a session clip slot.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like clip_add_notes or clip_fire by focusing on creation of a new empty clip.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the target MIDI track and clip slot are known and a new clip is needed.' It also implies when not to use by noting non-idempotence for occupied slots, providing clear guidance.

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

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

Discloses read-only nature and returns value/range/automation state, and conditional metadata. However, no annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden; it omits what happens when device doesn't match bundled schemas, error behavior, or authentication needs.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and method; second adds usage context and return details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context: returns basic parameter info and conditional metadata. Lacks clarification on error states, unmatched device behavior, and return structure, but adequate for a read-only inspection tool.

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%, and the description only implicitly references parameters ('by track/device index'). It does not explain what track_index and device_index represent, their valid ranges, or how to obtain them, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Clearly states the tool is a read-only list of device parameters, using specific verbs and resource description. Distinguishes from sibling 'device_set_parameter' by mentioning 'use before automation or value changes'.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use ('before parameter automation or value changes'), providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling set tool implies the contrast.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only' (no side effects) and describes the return behavior (available=false with reason). This is adequate for a simple discovery tool, though it omits potential error conditions or auth requirements.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load key information (read-only, purpose, return behavior). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not fully explain the return structure (e.g., what 'available=true' looks like, full response fields). Combined with missing parameter semantics, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably use this tool.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the two required parameters (track_index, device_index). The agent must infer their meaning from context, which is a significant gap. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and this adds nothing.

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 a specific verb ('discovery') and resource ('Max for Live patcher'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like device_inspect_plugin by focusing on patcher metadata. The term 'Read-only' further clarifies the tool's nature.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use ('when deciding whether a device exposes inspectable M4L patcher metadata'). Does not name alternatives but implies scope; the return behavior ('available=false with a reason') provides practical guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but is sufficient.

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

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

The description declares the tool as read-only and explains the return behavior, including both success (plug-in identity and parameters) and failure (available=false with reason) cases. This provides good transparency about what the tool does and does not do, compensating for the lack of annotations.

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 concise—two sentences—with the most critical information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose and read-only nature in the first, usage context and return value in the second.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and return behavior, it fails to document the input parameters, which are essential for using the tool. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a significant gap, making the tool less usable.

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 does not explain the meaning of the two required integer parameters (track_index, device_index). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on how to populate these indices, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 performs read-only VST/AU plug-in discovery for a device, with a specific use case of identifying third-party plug-ins independently of user-edited names. This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from broader sibling tools like device_get_parameters.

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 explicitly states when to use ('when identifying third-party plug-ins without relying on user-edited device names'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the guidance is specific enough.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it discloses idempotency (within 1e-4), name lookup cost (bridge call), and output (before/after value with verification diff).

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Despite good description, the missing parameters in the input schema severely limit completeness. Agent cannot invoke the tool without knowing what to pass. Output is described but that's not enough.

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 implies parameters (parameter_index, parameter_name) but the input schema has zero properties. Schema coverage is 100% only because it's empty; the description adds meaning but is not actionable without actual schema parameters.

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 action ('Set one device parameter'), the resource ('device parameter'), and the method (by parameter_index or parameter_name). It distinguishes itself from sibling device_get_parameters.

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?

Explicitly recommends using after device_get_parameters when possible, providing clear usage context. Also mentions idempotency and cost of name lookup.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description declares it as 'Read-only' and describes the output contents (names, descriptions, arguments, count). This sufficiently conveys the tool's safe, non-destructive nature and return format.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loading the purpose and usage, with no unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output adequately. Could mention that it only lists metadata, not actual prompt content, but that's implied.

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?

With zero parameters, the description adds value by explaining the output. It states what data the tool returns, which is helpful beyond the empty schema.

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 it lists MCP prompts bundled with the server, specifying it returns prompt names, descriptions, arguments, and total count. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being focused on prompts rather than audio/MIDI operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user asks what workflows are available') and for which clients (those not exposing prompt discovery natively). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' and 'without touching Live', indicating non-destructive behavior. It also lists return fields (metadata, tags, version, category, total count).

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the purpose and usage, then details return fields. Efficient and well-structured.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it does, when to use, return fields, and safety. Could mention that no filter returns all recipes, but adequate.

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 only parameter 'category' is described as 'optionally filtered by category', adding meaning beyond the enum schema. The enum values are self-explanatory, so no further detail needed.

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 uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'embedded music recipes', mentions filtering by category, and distinguishes from sibling 'apply_recipe'. It clearly communicates the tool's scope.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use before apply_recipe to choose a valid recipe id', providing clear usage context. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is helpful.

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

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

Declares 'Read-only', which is a critical behavioral trait. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Could mention no side effects, but sufficient for a list operation.

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?

Single sentence covering purpose, usage context, and return values. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, description adequately explains what the tool returns (URI, name, description, MIME type, total count). Complete for a simple list tool.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so description needs to add no parameter info. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is high, and description adds value by listing return fields.

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?

Clearly states it lists MCP resources, with specific verb ('list') and resource type ('MCP resources'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prompts and list_recipes.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user asks what context URIs are available'. Does not mention when not to use, but sibling tools cover other resource types, so context is implied.

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

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

Discloses idempotency (already-playing returns changed=false), async transport state, and unverified result. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, usage, and behavior without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains edge cases (already playing), idempotency, and asynchronous behavior, making it complete.

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?

One parameter (from_beginning) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds context by clarifying its effect ('restarts the song from the beginning') and default (false), providing value beyond schema.

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 'Start or continue Ableton Live playback' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop' and mentions the optional from_beginning parameter.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants transport running' and explains the parameter. Could more directly contrast with alternatives like 'stop' or 'scene_fire', but provides clear context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses hardware requirement (Push 2/3), default mode (solid), and return format (sent=true with accepted fields). It does not mention idempotency or error conditions, but is adequate for a simple LED setter.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, requirements/defaults/return. Highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, hardware, defaults, and return. Missing details like color interpretation or error handling, but overall sufficient for most agents.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context by mentioning 'LED color and mode' and the default mode, but does not explain the integer color range or the button enum options beyond the sibling context. Partial compensation leaves some ambiguity.

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 it sets LED color and mode for Push transport/utility buttons, specifying hardware feedback after Push detection. It distinguishes from siblings like push_set_pad_color and push_set_mode by targeting transport/utility buttons.

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 usage context ('Use for hardware feedback after Push detection') and notes hardware requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to decide.

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

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 return value ('sent=true with the mode accepted by the bridge'), but does not mention side effects, safety, or error conditions. Adequate for a simple mode switch.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds usage context and return info. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, prerequisite, and return value. It lacks error handling details but is reasonably complete.

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%. The description merely lists the enum values (note, session, drum, step) which are already in the schema, adding no extra meaning about when to use each mode or what they entail.

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 verb 'Switch', the resource 'Ableton Push 2/3', and the specific modes (note, session, drum, step). It distinguishes itself from sibling push_* tools by focusing on mode switching.

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?

Provides explicit context ('when preparing a performance or editing workflow on Push hardware') and a prerequisite ('Requires Push 2/3'). Lacks exclusionary guidance or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses hardware requirement, return value ('sent=true'), and that the pad and color are 'accepted by the bridge'. It could mention error scenarios or side effects, but overall is fairly transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds context (use case, requirement, return). Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, requirement, and return value. Missing details about color semantics or behavior on duplicate pads, but adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 does not add meaning for the 'color' parameter (e.g., what values 0-127 correspond to), and the schema only describes 'pad'. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to describe 'color' beyond its existence.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Set' and resource 'color of one Ableton Push 2/3 pad on the 0..63 grid'. The phrase 'Use for visual feedback or performance layouts after hardware detection' further clarifies purpose and distinguishes from siblings like push_set_button_led.

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?

Provides usage context ('visual feedback or performance layouts after hardware detection') and requirement ('Requires Push 2/3'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like push_set_button_led for button LEDs.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that snapshot returns deep state without audio and bounce is for future audio export. However, it doesn't specify read-only nature, side effects, or permissions. Adequate but 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidelines and mode details. Every word adds value.

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?

Covers main purpose and modes, but lacks details about output format, behavior when bars is omitted, and edge cases. Adequate for a simple tool with 2 parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: it explains the mode enum values and implies bars is used with bounce mode ('returns requested bar count'). This provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 'Preview the current Live set state' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes modes (snapshot vs bounce) and their purposes, differentiating it from sibling tools like clip_fire or session_snapshot.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an agent needs a lightweight result check' and explains when to use each mode. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly discloses that the tool is NOT idempotent, that re-triggering restarts clips, returns the scene name, and marks async transport verification as unverified. This goes beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. The non-idempotency warning is crucial and efficiently communicated. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits (non-idempotent, return value), and an internal effect (transport verification mark). It is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'by index' without adding meaning beyond the parameter name. The integer 'index' with minimum 0 is self-explanatory from the schema, and the description does not clarify its range or behavior (e.g., what happens if out of range). Minimal value added.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fire' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Session view scene by index', triggering all clips on that row. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clip_fire' (fires single clip) and 'play' (general transport).

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 context by stating 'Use for arrangement-style playback from scenes.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context helps guide selection among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the tool as a comparison that returns change details, implying no side effects. It could be more explicit about being read-only and non-destructive, but it adequately hints at safe behavior.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value without redundancy.

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 the deep nesting of the input parameter and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of inputs and outputs but lacks specifics on how to acquire the snapshot or interpret the diff result. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Only one parameter exists with a complex schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description adds context by calling it a 'previous session_snapshot', but does not detail how to obtain or format it. The schema already defines the structure, so the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 compares a previous session_snapshot with the current Live state, using specific verbs and resources. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like session_get_info and session_snapshot by focusing on diffing.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool after a mutation batch to verify changes, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or potential alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as 'read-only' and 'without mutating the session', disclosing its non-destructive nature and the data returned.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose and read-only nature. Every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple return type, the description completely covers what the agent needs to know about the tool's functionality and use context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description's mention of return values adds meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero params; the description provides clarity on what the tool outputs.

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 it provides a read-only top-level snapshot, listing specific return values (tempo, transport, time signature, track counts, root note, scale). It distinguishes from editing tools by emphasizing no mutation.

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?

Explicitly advises 'use first when orienting an agent before edits', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. Implies it is the initial step before any modifications.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only', indicating no side effects, and describes the return shape including a condition for when the Live runtime does not expose Link state.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines purpose, the second adds behavioral detail and return shape. No extraneous information; very concise.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return shape. It could be more explicit about the fields returned, but the mention of 'nullable status fields' and 'reason' is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description does not describe any parameters because there are none. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 specifies a clear verb ('discovery') and resource ('Ableton Link and external sync status'), and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings that deal with tracks, clips, devices, etc.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before sync-sensitive playback or collaboration workflows'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but none are obvious among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It clearly labels the tool as 'read-only' and 'deep snapshot' and explicitly states it does not change playback or session state, giving agents confidence in its safety.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral traits are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema, yet description gives a high-level idea of what is returned ('tracks and optional clips/devices'). For a snapshot tool with two optional booleans, the description is mostly complete. Lacks details on return format, but not critical for an agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'optional clips/devices', hinting at the two boolean params (include_clips, include_devices), but does not explicitly name them or explain their effect in detail. Adds some meaning but could be clearer.

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 'Read-only deep snapshot of the Live session' and specifies the returned data ('tracks and optional clips/devices'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'session_diff' by positioning itself as the data capture tool used before and after mutations.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before and after mutating tools to verify changes with session_diff', providing a clear usage context and alternative. Also notes it does not change state, so it's safe to call without side effects.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders transparency. It discloses idempotency within 0.001 BPM, read-after-write verification, and returned data (before/after tempo, diff on disagreement). This exceeds typical expectations.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, range, usage context, and behavior. No superfluous words; front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers behavior, idempotency, verification, and return data. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or side effects, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'bpm' parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Set), resource (global Ableton Live tempo), and scope (20-999 BPM). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'song-wide tempo changes before creating clips or scenes', and no other sibling tool handles tempo changes.

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 a clear use case ('use for song-wide tempo changes before creating clips or scenes') and implies safety via idempotency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

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 fully discloses idempotency ('already-stopped sessions return changed=false'), async transport state, and unverified result. This gives the agent complete insight into side effects and return behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second gives usage guidance, third explains key behaviors. No redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, idempotency, async nature, and return characteristics. The agent can confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed.

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 stops Ableton Live playback using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'play' and 'clip_stop' by naming the exact action and target. The phrase 'Stop Ableton Live playback' is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use before editing or when the user asks to halt audio.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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

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

Discloses non-idempotency and that it returns the created track with type verification. No annotations are present, so this adds valuable behavioral context.

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?

Two efficient sentences with a front-loaded purpose and immediate behavioral note, no wasted words.

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?

Covers creation purpose, usage trigger, non-idempotency, and return verification sufficiently for a simple creation tool with no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially explains that 'type' can be midi or audio and that index is optional, but does not detail name or index constraints, leaving some burden unmet.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a MIDI or audio track at an optional index, distinguishing it from sibling tools like track_get_info or track_list.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user explicitly wants another track', providing clear context, though no exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares read-only behavior, lists returned fields, and states it returns verified state. It does not mention error handling or performance, but is sufficient for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence gives purpose, second adds usage and return info. Efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. It could mention return format or potential errors, but is adequate overall.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by index' without elaborating on valid index range or how to obtain it. For a single parameter, more semantic guidance would help.

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 verb (get details), resource (one regular track by index), and read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like track_list and track_set_name by specifying it returns verified state without mutation.

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?

Explicitly recommends using before track-scoped edits and lists the details returned (name, type, volume, etc.). It confirms no mutation, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It explicitly states the tool is 'read-only' and 'without mutating the session', which is sufficient transparency 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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads key information (read-only, purpose).

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only vaguely mentions 'counts and optional return/master sections'. For a listing tool, more detail on the output structure would improve completeness.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context (e.g., 'optional return/master sections') but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters.

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: listing regular, return, and master tracks in the current Live set. It uses specific verbs ('list') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that modify tracks.

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 advises using the tool before addressing tracks by index or creating content, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the read-only nature is implied.

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

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

Describes idempotent behavior, return of before/after names, and read-after-write verification. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. 'Regular track' is slightly ambiguous but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action. Each sentence adds meaningful information: action, prerequisite, idempotence, return info. No superfluous content.

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?

Covers action, safe usage, and return info. Lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid index) and track type distinction. But for a simple tool, it's mostly adequate.

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 coverage is 0% (no param descriptions in input schema). The description only implies that index identifies the track and name is the new name, but adds no detail about index format, name constraints, or error handling.

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 action ('Rename a regular track by index') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use after track_list or track_get_info. It provides a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly says to use after confirming the target track with track_list or track_get_info, implying correct context. No explicit exclusions but clear prerequisite.

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

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

Discloses idempotence within 1e-4, return of before/after linear and dB values, and verification diff on mismatch. This is good transparency for a volume setter, though permissions and side effects are omitted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and value range. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly rephrased for clarity. Efficient.

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?

Lacks output schema but mentions return values. Does not address error handling (e.g., invalid index) or state changes. For a simple setter, this is minimally complete.

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 covers 50% of parameters (volume has description). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond 'normalized 0..1', which is already in schema. Index parameter lacks description in both schema and tool description.

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 sets a regular track's mixer volume as a normalized 0..1 value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for naming, tempo, etc. However, 'regular track' is slightly ambiguous (excludes master?).

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 advises using after confirming the track index, providing minimal usage context. No explicit when-not or alternatives to other volume-related tools, but the sibling list lacks similar volume tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. Mentions idempotency and changed flag, but does not explain behavior for optional index or error scenarios. Somewhat informative but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Tool has 3 parameters, no output schema. Description covers the core upsert behavior and idempotency, but lacks explanation for index parameter and any error handling details. Moderately complete for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description needs to explain parameters. It covers name and type, but completely omits the optional index parameter, leaving its purpose and behavior ambiguous.

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 action (find or create), the resource (track), and the key criteria (name and type), making it distinct from sibling tools like track_create.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (to avoid duplicates), and implies idempotency. However, doesn't explicitly exclude cases or mention direct alternatives, though track_create is a clear sibling.

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