Get Bus State

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds value by disclosing that values are returned in both linear and human-readable formats and that it covers complete state including fader and on/off status, which goes beyond the raw annotation hints.

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 concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and key contents, while the second adds return format detail. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, strong annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by specifying the complete state and return formats. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact list of returned parameters, but 'other key parameters' is acceptable for this level of complexity.

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% for the single parameter 'bus', which already documents it as a mix bus number from 1 to 16. The description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter itself beyond referencing 'mix bus' in the purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves complete state of a mix bus, listing fader level, on/off status, and other key parameters. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('mix bus'), distinguishing it from sibling setter tools like bus_set_volume and bus_mute, as well as from fx_get_state for a different resource.

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 description clearly implies a read operation for when you need bus state, establishing context for use. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the 'complete state' phrasing and focus on read-only retrieval make the intended usage obvious without confusion.

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