get_audio_bus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it explains that is_active is always false because no audio device is queried (headless), which an agent could not infer from annotations or 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then read-only note, alternative, and return shape in a logical order. Minor redundancy: 'is_active is always false' is stated both in prose and again in the Returns block, which is a small waste.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing the return object, and it does so field-by-field. It also discloses the headless caveat that explains the always-false is_active, so nothing needed to interpret results is missing.

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% for the single bus_path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's field enumeration (Mono/St stereo/Quad/etc.) describes return values rather than the parameter, adding no syntax or format guidance for bus_path itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the channel layout of a UAudioBus asset') and enumerates the exact fields returned (channels, channels_int, num_channels). It names the sibling that performs the opposite operation, so an agent can distinguish it from set_audio_bus_channels without opening either schema.

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 frames this as the read counterpart and routes the agent to set_audio_bus_channels for changing the layout. The condition selecting each tool is stated ('Change the layout with...'), leaving nothing to inference.

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