get_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the two-state response layout, the 1-6 footswitch scope, and the important limitation that 'the pedal doesn't report which A/B side is active', which affects how the agent must interpret `current_state`. It does not mention failure behavior for unassigned switches, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded: the what/where sentence comes first, then the conditional response-shape caveat. The parenthetical about `second_state` and `current_state` earns its space by explaining a non-obvious payload layout. Slight redundancy with the listed return fields, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description need not re-document return values, yet it still names the key fields and the A/B ambiguity. The main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about what happens when the footswitch holds no scene.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single `switch` parameter has no description or bounds in the schema. The description compensates by defining the valid domain ('footswitch 1-6'), which is exactly the missing information an agent needs to avoid an invalid call.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read a scene on footswitch 1-6') and enumerates the returned contents (blocks, doubling, path, presets, color, MIDI out), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related siblings set_scene or activate_scene, but the read-only framing plus the shared-shape note makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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 explains the conditional usage context for the two-state case ('When `states` is 2...'), which is real guidance. It never says when to prefer this over activate_scene or get_footswitch_settings, nor what to do if the footswitch has no scene assigned, so the when-to-use picture is only implied.

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