get_master_mixer_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states what is returned (volume, pan, crossfader, list of devices), making the behavior transparent. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, but 'Get' implies it. It doesn't disclose any side effects, which is appropriate for a getter.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds information. No wasted words.

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 getter, the description is complete: it identifies the target (master track) and the returned data (volume, pan, crossfader, devices). The presence of an output schema further covers detailed formatting. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mixer state of the master track'), and enumerates the returned fields (volume, pan, crossfader, devices). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mixer_state (which likely targets any track) or get_master_output_meter (which only returns metering).

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 provides clear context for when to use it: when you need the mixer state of the master track. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous. A brief note about using get_mixer_state for other tracks would have been helpful for a 5.

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