get_channel_send_to_bus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose potential edge cases, return format, or error handling. The existing output schema may mitigate some 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be improved by adding parameter or output context without losing conciseness.

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 simple read operation and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain the return values, parameter formats, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details. The terms 'channel' and 'bus' are not explained (e.g., names vs. IDs), leaving agents to infer meaning from context. The tool title also missing.

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 (query) and resource (current send level from a channel to a bus). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_channel_send_to_bus' by indicating a read operation, though it does not specify the value type or format.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_channel_fader' or sibling getters. The description implies usage for reading a send level but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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