get_send_level

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning return value format, potential errors, or prerequisites such as the existence of the track/send. For a getter, some side-effect safety is inherent, but the lack of return-type or failure-mode information is a gap.

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 compact and to the point: one sentence for the action and a clear parameter list. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 simple getter with two parameters, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, the absence of an output schema means the description should have mentioned the return format or value type, which is not provided. It is functional but not fully complete.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'track_index' as the source track and 'send_index' with the 0=A, 1=B convention. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable and covers both parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('send level'), and the context ('from a track to a return track'), clearly distinguishing it from its sibling 'set_send_level'. The parameter explanations further clarify the purpose.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Get' as a read operation, and the context of send levels is clear. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'set_send_level', nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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