get_rig_spec_format

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds that the returned format spans footswitches, scenes and routings, but does not say whether this is a static reference document, a versioned schema, or something that changes with the current rig state — a meaningful behavioral distinction left unstated.

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 well-formed sentence with the object front-loaded and the covered sections listed after. Slightly more precision in what 'spec format' means would justify a 5, but there is no wasteful wording.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema, so return-value detail is already handled and the description need not restate it. The only real gap is workflow context — when to call this relative to create_rig — which keeps it below a perfect score.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for the schema to describe, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless lookup and adds no misleading param claims.

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 (get the create_rig spec format) and enumerates what the format covers: footswitches, scenes and routings. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_rig or list_rigs, though the phrase 'spec format' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns a schema/template or a sample document.

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. The reference to create_rig implies this is a prerequisite lookup before creating a rig, but the description never says to call it first, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow relationship entirely.

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