mixer_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context, and it does: it discloses exactly what state is reported (master level, mute flag, all channels with volumes and rates). It stops short of stating whether state is live/cached or how frequently it should be polled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the enumerated contents after the colon. No filler, no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by listing master volume, mute, and all channels with volumes and sample rates. It is complete enough to call correctly; only freshness/timing semantics are absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous, and the description correctly implies no filtering arguments are available.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (mixer state) and enumerates the returned fields: master volume, mute, per-channel volumes and sample rates. It is distinguishable from mutating siblings like mixer_volume and mixer_mute by the 'Get' framing, though it never names them.

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 implied by the read-only verb, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus mixer_volume, mixer_mute, or mixer_channel_volume, nor any note about calling it before/after mutations. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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