get_eq_bands

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful return-shape context, such as band metadata and computed gain_db values, but does not disclose behavior for invalid fx_index or non-ReaEQ FX. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 return value is documented in detail even without an output schema, and fx_index is explained. However, track_index is missing from the description, and there is no guidance about when to prefer this over get_eq_band_enabled or set_eq_band, leaving the description only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents fx_index clearly as a 0-based FX index, but track_index is required by the schema and is completely unexplained, leaving an essential parameter underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all ReaEQ band settings in one structured call.' The word 'all' and the structured-return framing distinguish it from siblings like get_eq_band_enabled and set_eq_band.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving the complete set of ReaEQ band settings at once, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named as alternatives.

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