osc_get_eq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves EQ gain, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires special permissions, has side effects, or details about response format (e.g., numeric value, units). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential system interaction.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy 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 tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to fully compensate by not explaining the return value (e.g., gain in dB) or behavioral context, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly defining 'channel' and 'band' with ranges. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'EQ gain' represents or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('EQ gain for a channel band'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq' or 'osc_set_eq_frequency', which would require a 5.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq' (for setting EQ) or other 'get' tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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