osc_get_mute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is inadequate 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the mute status return value looks like (e.g., boolean, string) or any error conditions. For a simple read tool, this leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 documenting the 'channel' parameter with type, range, and requirement. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('mute status of a channel'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_pan', which also retrieve channel statuses, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 siblings like 'osc_mute_channel' (which likely sets mute) and other 'osc_get_*' tools for different channel attributes, there's no indication of context or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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