osc_get_pan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter but no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context. It tells what the tool retrieves but doesn't explain the return format, units, or typical use cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is borderline adequate but lacks completeness for optimal agent understanding.

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, thoroughly documenting the single 'channel' parameter with type, range, and requirement details. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra 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 action ('Get') and resource ('pan position for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'osc_set_pan' (which sets pan) and other 'osc_get_' tools that retrieve different mixer parameters. However, it doesn't specify what 'pan position' means in context (e.g., stereo balance control), which prevents a perfect 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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships with sibling tools like 'osc_set_pan' or other retrieval tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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