get_footswitch_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the settings are global across all rigs and the server provides no way to modify them, closing off any expectation of a write counterpart. It omits pagination/return-shape detail, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the scope ('global settings that affect every rig') before the operational caveat. Every clause carries information the agent would not get from the schema or annotations.

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 zero parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the remaining burden is scope and mutation semantics, both addressed. The vague 'and more' leaves the actual contents of the settings partially undefined, though the output schema presumably enumerates them.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty argument schema.

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 and resource (read global footswitch settings) and scopes it as affecting every rig, which meaningfully separates it from the rig-scoped sibling get_footswitches. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 line 'this server can't change them, so do that on the pedal' tells the agent this is the read-only path and that writing requires external action, which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus get_footswitches or list_footswitch_actions, leaving the choice to inference.

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