get_eq_band_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape ('Object with ret boolean, true=enabled') and implicitly indicates a non-mutating read via 'Check', but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the FX index is invalid, or whether the track must be selected.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a clean Args/Returns structure with no redundant prose. Slightly verbose in header labels but every line carries information.

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 documenting the return object is the right call, and the bandtype enum is a valuable addition. The one gap is the undocumented track_index parameter, which an agent must infer.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for three of four params: it explains fx_index (0-based), bandidx (0=first), and critically supplies the full bandtype enum mapping (0=hipass ... 5=lopass) which the schema lacks entirely. It omits any description of track_index, keeping it short of a 5.

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+resource: checking the enabled state of a ReaEQ band. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_eq_bands (all bands) and set_eq_band_enabled (mutation), so an agent can select it without opening either 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?

The description explains the arguments but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_eq_bands or how it relates to set_eq_band_enabled. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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