get_patch

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields, which tells the agent this is a read of patch structure rather than settings mutation. However it says nothing about failure modes (patch not found), required app state, or whether results reflect live or saved state — meaningful gaps for an unannotated 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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields listed compactly after the colon. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic field list would benefit from a clearer leading verb.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers the return payload well and implies single-item scope. The missing piece is parameter meaning — especially the 'concert' scoping relationship — which leaves an agent guessing at how to address the patch 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 coverage is 0%: both 'concert' and 'patch' are bare strings with no titles beyond the field names. The description clarifies 'patch' only implicitly ('one patch'), and never explains what 'concert' identifies or that it scopes the lookup. With two required, undocumented parameters, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 resource (one patch) and enumerates exactly what comes back: tempo, time signature, channel strips with sound, dB, pan, mute, plug-ins. The phrase 'one patch' distinguishes it from list_patches without needing to name the sibling. The verb is implied ('details of') rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a known patch name or concert context), and no pointer to list_patches for discovery. The only guidance is implicit in 'one patch', which hints at single-item retrieval versus a list. An agent must infer the rest.

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