get_play_rate

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaning of the returned value ('1.0 is normal speed'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scope (master vs. per-item rate) or whether negative/reverse rates are possible.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler; the resource is front-loaded and the clarifying scale note follows immediately.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the name and interpretation of the returned value. It stops short of describing edge cases (reverse playback, envelope-driven rate changes), which is a minor gap for a simple getter.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose and instead spends its words on the return value, which is the right allocation.

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 and resource ('Get the project playback rate'), and names the returned field `rate` with its scale. It is clearly distinguishable from the getter siblings (get_tempo, get_time_signature) and from the mutating counterpart set_play_rate, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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 only implied by the 'Get' verb and readOnlyHint; there is no statement of when to call this versus set_play_rate or get_play_state, and no preconditions. For a zero-param getter the risk is low, but the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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