get_equalizer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the returned fields (preamp, band gains, presets), which signals a non-mutating inspection call, but it never states outright that it changes nothing, nor does it mention any preconditions such as playback state or equalizer availability.

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 no filler: verb, resource, and the three pieces of state returned. Every word earns its place and nothing is buried at the end.

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 zero-argument read tool with an output schema present, the description need not restate return structure, and it sensibly summarizes the key fields instead. The only shortfall is the absence of any explicit statement that the call is side-effect free, which matters since no annotations cover it.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema shows; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and focuses on what the call surfaces.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') plus the resource ('equalizer state') and enumerates the content returned (preamp, band gains, presets). This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling set_equalizer, though it never names that alternative 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?

Read-only intent is implied by 'Show', which suggests inspection rather than modification, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to set_equalizer for changes. An agent can infer the read/write split from the verb, but it is inference rather than guidance.

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