devices_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for genuinely additive behavior: values are returned in real units (dB, Hz, ms, %) rather than normalized 0..1, and choice parameters expose an index-to-option mapping (Shape 4 = HighPass) — both are non-obvious and prevent misreading the response. It does not say what happens for an empty slot or a non-builtin/plugin device, 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?

It is a single tight sentence with no filler, but it is front-loaded with return-value detail rather than the tool's action, which is the wrong lead for an agent scanning for a verb and resource. The content is efficient; the ordering is not.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so partially: parameter value/range/default/unit/group and enumerated choices are covered. But it omits the top-level shape (does it also return device name, type, bypass state?), leaves 'builtin effect' undefined against plugin devices, and says nothing about failure on an empty slot. Adequate for a 2-parameter read, with clear gaps.

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%: slot is documented as a 0-based signal-order position and chain is documented with the track/return_bus/master union, including the id-vs-index tradeoff. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 never states the operation explicitly — it never says 'retrieve the device at a chain slot' and never names the device as the resource being fetched. Instead it jumps straight into describing the shape of the returned parameter list, from which an agent must infer that this reads a builtin effect's parameters. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like params_list, devices_list, or midi_fx_get.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With siblings such as params_list and devices_list present, an agent is left to guess whether this is the right call for inspecting effect parameters versus listing devices.

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