osc_custom_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sends a command but lacks behavioral details such as whether it's read-only or destructive, error handling, network latency, or mixer state changes. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about operational risks or effects.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, effectively communicating the core function. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's potential for destructive actions (sending commands to a mixer), the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context like safety, error responses, or when to prefer specialized sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, with clear documentation for 'address' and 'value' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as example usage or mixer-specific constraints, but the schema adequately covers the basics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Send') and target ('custom OSC command to the mixer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like osc_set_fader or osc_set_channel_name, which also send commands but for specific parameters, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this generic tool versus the specialized ones.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for specific operations (e.g., osc_set_fader, osc_mute_channel), it fails to indicate that this tool is for arbitrary or unsupported OSC commands, missing critical context for agent decision-making.

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