osc_get_send_to_bus

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the send level is returned in (e.g., dB, percentage), or if there are any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with no 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the send level'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand at a glance.

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 simple read-only nature (implied by 'Get'), two well-documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return value format, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader OSC/X32 ecosystem represented by sibling tools, leaving some operational questions unanswered.

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 both parameters with ranges (channel 1-32, bus 1-16). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a 'send level' represents or how channel/bus numbering relates to the mixer's layout. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the send level') and resource ('from a channel to a mix bus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_send_to_bus' (which likely sets rather than gets) or 'osc_get_fader' (which might get a different type of level), leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded namespace.

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 that also involve 'get' operations (e.g., osc_get_fader, osc_get_mute, osc_get_pan), there's no indication of when this specific tool for send levels is appropriate versus other retrieval tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or contextual constraints.

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