Get Parameter (Low-Level)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds context about being low-level and using raw OSC patterns, which is not present in the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and contributes useful behavioral insight beyond the structured 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 two sentences with no filler. It leads with a clear warning ('ADVANCED/LOW-LEVEL TOOL') and immediately states function and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low-level read tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It could have explained what the returned value looks like, but given the simplicity and the openWorldHint, the provided information is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage, including examples. The description text itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating raw OSC usage, which is already in the schema. The schema carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves current parameter values from X32/M32 mixers via raw OSC address patterns. It explicitly differentiates itself from semantic siblings by labeling itself as ADVANCED/LOW-LEVEL, making the purpose and resource unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Consider using semantic tools (channel_*, bus_*, etc.) for common operations' and 'Use this tool for parameters not covered by semantic tools or for debugging purposes.' This clearly states when to use the tool and when to prefer alternatives.

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