katana_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral facts: the return format is friendly dotted keys, and effect sections report the active variation rather than raw state. It says nothing about needing an active BOSS TONE STUDIO connection, whether unsaved edits are included, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose and return-shape lead, with the variation caveat as a second, genuinely useful clarification.

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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return values (key naming and effect variation), which is the main thing an agent cannot get from structured fields. The remaining gap is connection prerequisites, which the sibling set hints at but the description never states.

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% and the sole 'sections' parameter is documented inline ('Limit to these sections; omit for all'). The description adds no additional meaning about the filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus specific resource (current tone from BOSS TONE STUDIO) and the shape of the result (friendly keys such as amp.volume, booster.type). The read/mutate split against sibling katana_set is inferable but the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Read' - an agent can guess this is the inspection counterpart to katana_set, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (katana_connect/katana_launch), and no exclusions.

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