get_sound_outputCheck the current audio output destination on a webOS TV, such as TV speaker, optical, ARC, Bluetooth soundbar, or headphones.
現在の音声出力先を返す（tv_speaker, external_optical, external_arc, bt_soundbar, headphone など）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | 対象デバイス名または IP。省略時は既定デバイス（--device / WEBOS_DEVICE / devices.json の defaultDevice） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds the list of possible output values, which is useful context but does not go beyond that—no mention of failure modes, permissions, or side effects. Given the annotations, this is adequate.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes practical examples. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.
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 simple getter with no required parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned and gives examples, though it does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., string) or error behavior. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, so the 'device' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, and it is optional. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 returns the current audio output destination, listing concrete examples like tv_speaker and external_optical. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from set_sound_output, which is a sibling. The purpose is unambiguous and easy for an agent to act on.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description: this is the read counterpart to set_sound_output. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. For a simple getter, the context is clear, but it does not state when not to use it or mention the sibling as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.