get_parameters

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the tool as inspecting and returning detailed parameter information, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly state mutability or preconditions (e.g., requiring a prior sound generation), but 'inspect the last generated sound' provides sufficient context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage context. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately summarizes return values (waveform type, frequency settings, envelope characteristics, effects). It covers the essential information for an agent to understand what the tool provides. With no params, the description is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 no parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb 'inspect' and resource 'synthesis parameters of the last generated sound', and lists what it returns (waveform type, frequency settings, envelope characteristics, effects). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create, export, list, mutate, randomize which are active or listing tools, whereas this is purely inspection.

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 states it is 'essential for understanding how sounds are constructed, reverse-engineering presets, or using existing sounds as starting points for modifications', giving clear contexts for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like mutate_sound or list_presets, though the inspection vs. modification distinction is implicit.

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