get_send_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), what units the returned level is in, or what happens with invalid indices. This leaves the agent with incomplete expectations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with a single purpose sentence followed by parameter definitions. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a return value (e.g., level in dB). Without this, the description is functional but leaves a key gap in understanding the tool's result.

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 description explicitly defines each parameter beyond the schema: track_index is 'the index of the source track' and send_index is 'the index of the send (0=A, 1=B, etc.)'. This adds crucial meaning that the bare schema lacks, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Get the send level from a track to a return track.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (send level from a track to a return track), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling set_send_level and other track-related getters.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_send_level or get_return_tracks. The description simply states what it does without context on typical use cases or exclusions.

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