get_alignment_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' strongly implies a side-effect-free operation, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, nor does it mention potential errors (e.g., if alignment is not configured) or prerequisites. The description does add useful context about the scope of the state, but stops short of full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates the contents concisely. Every element listed (mode, frequency, indices, per-side settings, delay limits, accepted modes/commands) is necessary and adds 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It lists all the state components that will be returned, which is essentially the full contract for the tool. There are no gaps that would leave an agent guessing about what this tool provides.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds relevant information about what the returned state contains, which is more meaningful than parameter details. There is nothing more to add for parameters.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the alignment tool's full state'), and enumerates the exact components returned (mode, frequency, indices, per-side gain/delay/polarity, delay limits, accepted modes/commands). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_alignment or run_alignment_command, which are write/execute operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the read counterpart to configure_alignment, nor does it state that it should be used to inspect state before making changes. The only implied usage is from the verb 'Read', but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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