get_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description adds real value by stating what the return contains: a volume percentage and the mute state. It stops short of describing default-sink scope or the unit/type of the value.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the two pieces of state returned. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a zero-arg read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields. A small gap remains: it does not say whether the volume reflects the default sink or the active device, which matters given the sibling set includes list_audio_sinks and set_default_sink.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no inputs 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?

A specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('current audio output volume percentage and mute state'). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_mic_volume, list_audio_sinks, and the set/increase/decrease/toggle siblings by naming the output-volume read 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?

Usage is implied: it is the read counterpart to set_volume/increase_volume/toggle_mute, so an agent can infer 'call this to read state before adjusting'. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., versus get_mic_volume or list_audio_sinks).

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