get_meta_sound_node_input_default

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 still adds behavioral value: it discloses the error behavior of an unknown input name (fails and lists valid ones) and explains the has_value semantics, which is not derivable from the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the error caveat, then the write sibling, then a compact Returns block. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing schema-shaped Returns list is slightly mechanical.

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, so the description correctly supplies the return shape and the meaning of has_value/literal_type. Combined with the disclosed failure behavior and the named write alternative, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 fully documents node_id, input_name and metasound_path, including the GUID requirement and the MetaSound Source vs Patch constraint. The description adds only a light gloss on 'vertex type' without syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the default literal stored on one input of a MetaSound Source node') and enumerates exactly what is returned (vertex type, has_value, literal_type, value). It distinguishes itself from the sibling writer by name, so an agent can tell the read tool from metasound_set_node_input_default 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 routes to the counterpart writer ('Write it with metasound_set_node_input_default') and notes the failure mode for a bad input name. It gives clear usage context but no explicit 'when-not' aside from the implied read/write split.

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