fmod_MixerBus_getOutputFormat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves', but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require special permissions. For a simple getter, this is adequate but could be clearer.

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 very short and to the point, but the redundant sentence 'Returns the effective output format for a model.' does not add value and slightly detracts from clarity. Still, it is not overly verbose.

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?

The description lacks details on the return value structure or type, and no output schema exists. For a getter, knowing the format of the output (e.g., string, object) is important. The mention of 'effective output format' is vague.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the target parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states it retrieves the output format of the bus, distinguishing it from the sibling fmod_MixerBus_getInputFormat. However, the phrase 'Returns the effective output format for a model' introduces ambiguity as it switches from 'bus' to 'model', which could confuse agents.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The sibling tool for input format implies the distinction, but the description does not clarify when to choose output over input format or other bus-related tools.

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