osc_get_gate

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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe any other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point, 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, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns numeric or structured data about gate thresholds. It doesn't explain what the return value represents (e.g., threshold level in dB), any units, or potential error states. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter ('channel') including type, range, and description. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('gate threshold for a channel'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_mute', but the specificity of 'gate threshold' provides enough distinction in context. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like 'osc_get_fader' and 'osc_get_mute' that also retrieve channel-specific settings, there's no indication of when gate thresholds are needed or what distinguishes this from other 'get' operations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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