Get TONE3000 tone details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that the tool 'classifies captured stages' and that download URLs are 'authenticated,' signaling output composition and auth expectations beyond the raw 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?

One compact sentence front-loads the primary action and avoids filler. It loses a point because 'classify its captured stages' is jargon-heavy and the optional architecture parameter is silently omitted.

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?

The core use case of resolving a tone by ID or URL and retrieving models/download URLs is covered, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the optional architecture parameter is never addressed, and 'captured stages' is vague enough that an agent may not know what classification behavior to expect.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain both parameters, but it only glosses 'tone' as an ID or URL and never mentions the 'architecture' parameter. The enum values '1', '2', and 'custom' remain unexplained, leaving a meaningful semantic gap for agents deciding what to pass.

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 specific verbs tied to a concrete resource: 'Resolve a TONE3000 tone ID or URL,' and states three distinct outcomes (classify captured stages, list models, return authenticated download URLs). This clearly separates it from search-oriented siblings like search_tone3000, which focus on discovery rather than resolving a specific tone.

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 phrase 'Resolve a TONE3000 tone ID or URL' implies the tool is meant for cases where the agent already has a specific tone identifier. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over search_tone3000 or other siblings, and it gives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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