get_master_output_meter

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return fields (output_meter_level, output_meter_left, output_meter_right) and the value range (0.0 to 1.0), giving clear expectations about the tool's output behavior. It does not mention side effects, but as a getter this is acceptable.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then present the return values clearly. Every sentence adds meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no inputs and an existing output schema, so the description does not need to explain return formats in detail. It adequately covers the core action and outcome. It could benefit from noting how it differs from sibling meter tools, but that is not essential for this 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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description trivially satisfies this.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current output meter levels for the master track,' which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_track_output_meter, though the phrase 'master track' provides implicit distinction.

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 used when you need master output metering, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_track_output_meter or get_all_track_meters. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, leaving usage context vague.

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