osc_get_channel_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned source data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted information.

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. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are important for a read operation in a system with many sibling tools. This results in a description that meets the bare minimum but could be more informative.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'channel' fully documented in the schema (type, description, min/max). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'input source' entails or how the channel number maps to physical inputs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('input source for a channel'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_get_channel_name' or 'osc_set_channel_source', which might retrieve different channel attributes or perform write operations, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'osc_get_channel_name' for other channel properties or 'osc_set_channel_source' for write operations, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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