get_master_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating side effects and return behavior. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get information', but it does not disclose the structure of the response, units of volume/pan, or whether the devices list includes additional detail. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks richer context.

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 a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential information without any filler. It is front-loaded and earns its place by naming the key fields (volume, pan, devices). No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete, but it could be enhanced by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., a dictionary with keys). The lack of an output schema means the description should more thoroughly explain what the caller receives, which it only partially does.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters. By the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds value by specifying what information is returned, which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('information about the master track'), while also listing the main fields covered (volume, pan, devices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info (which is likely generic) and from setters like set_master_volume, making the purpose 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the 'Get' verb implies read-only retrieval, and the existence of sibling setters (set_master_volume, set_master_pan) makes the usage context implicitly clear. No explicit exclusions are provided, so it does not fully meet the bar for a 4.

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