get_soundfield_submix_info

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'without changing it' largely restates structured data. The one genuinely new behavioral disclosure is the conditional note emitted when no concrete soundfield effect class is loaded, which is useful but narrow.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the read operation and its scope come first, then the returned field structure. The 'Returns:' block slightly repeats the first sentence's field enumeration, but with no output schema this redundancy is functional rather than wasteful.

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 correctly compensates by documenting the full return object, including nested encoding_settings and effect_chain entries plus the optional note. Annotations cover the safety profile and the single param is documented in the schema, leaving little else an agent would need.

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 is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents submix_path. The description references submix_path only in the return shape and adds no format or path-resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a USoundfieldSubmix asset') and enumerates exactly which properties are returned, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_submix_effect_chain, create_soundfield_submix, or set_soundfield_effect_settings without opening any 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?

It signals the read-only nature ('without changing it'), which implies inspection rather than mutation, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_submix_effect_chain, nor does it name any exclusion condition. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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