get_device_sidechain_routing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that unsupported configurations are reported explicitly and clarifies the scope to avoid misinterpretation, which is extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying caveat about not confusing routing types is concise and valuable.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is read, that unsupported cases are reported, and how it differs from track routing. It lacks explicit mention of error handling for invalid device IDs, but the 'reports unsupported explicitly' clause partially covers this. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both trackId and deviceId are already documented. The description mentions 'one loaded device' which implies deviceId must refer to a loaded device, but adds little beyond the schema's definitions. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('exact native external-sidechain source type and channel choices for one loaded device'), and explicitly differentiates from track input routing. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_track_routing.

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 clear context (device-sidechain vs. track input routing) and implies usage for reading a device's external sidechain configuration. It does not explicitly mention the write counterpart set_device_sidechain_routing or when not to use it, but the clarification about not confusing routing types gives useful guidance.

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