crosspad_audio_route

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions the USB MIDI SysEx command (0x1D), the 'near-unity PCB loopback path' compression at high input levels, and that routing reverts to firmware defaults on device reset. This goes beyond annotations. Minor gap: no mention of potential side effects (e.g., audio interruption during set) or persistence of settings.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points for actions and parameter lists. It is concise but includes necessary technical details (USB mode, Linux command). Minor redundancy: 'Notes:' section could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's 7 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main actions, parameter semantics, and key behavioral notes (loopback compression, reset behavior). It lacks explicit mention of output structure, but the output schema supplies that. Could add note about required permissions or device connectivity, but not critical.

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 100%, but the description adds significant meaning by grouping parameters by action and explaining their roles in context (e.g., 'adc_input' with values 'diff', 'line1', 'line2'; 'mic_src' with 0 or 1; 'per-codec fields need `codec`'). This clarifies the relationship between parameters and the tool's operation, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Runtime audio routing control on a connected CrossPad'. It specifies the verb 'control' and the resource 'audio routing', and distinguishes from sibling tools (none others handle audio routing). It provides concrete actions ('query' to read state, 'set' to apply changes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear usage guidance: it explains the two actions ('query' and 'set'), describes what each parameter does in context, notes the prerequisite (Linux with `amidi`), and provides behavioral notes (PCB loopback behavior, firmware reset). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but since no sibling tool provides similar functionality, this is not a significant gap.

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