get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload (all five state fields) plus the multi-receiver prerequisite workflow. It is silent on permissions, error cases, or whether the call can fail for an unreachable receiver, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned data and followed by the one conditional prerequisite. No filler, no restating the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it enumerates every field returned, including the volume range. Combined with the receiver-selection prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the single 'receiver' param is fully documented in the schema, including the 'as returned by discover_receivers' and 'omit to use the default receiver' semantics. The description's 'pass the one you want' merely restates that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and enumerates exactly which state fields are returned (power state, master volume with its 0-100 range, mute state, selected input, listening mode). This cleanly separates it from the set_* mutators and from discover_receivers without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional prerequisite: 'If there are several receivers on the network, call discover_receivers first and pass the one you want.' That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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