osc_get_aux_fader

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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., numeric value, units). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context, which are important for a read operation in a system with many sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter 'aux' with its type, description, and constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 ('Get') and resource ('fader level for an aux output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_get_bus_fader' by specifying 'aux output', but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_set_aux_fader'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to choose 'osc_get_aux_fader' over 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_bus_fader', or clarify its role compared to write operations like 'osc_set_aux_fader'.

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