get_code

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

The description adds much beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It describes the sentinel response 'Nothing is playing yet.' and the song-structure template returned alongside that response. It also describes the state before Moontide is started ('starts nothing') and the metadata returned after start (page address, port, tab title).

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 key fact, that this reads the currently playing code, comes first, and every clause adds real information about the return states. The single run-on sentence packs in many clauses, so the dense signal slightly hurts readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full load of explaining return values, and it does. It covers the empty case (sentinel plus template), the not-yet-started case, and the started case with metadata. An agent can call this tool and interpret every response state.

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 to disambiguate, and the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter detail that it would need to add.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it reads the Strudel code currently playing, meaning the last code the page confirmed. Its scope, 'including edits the user evaluated by hand', separates it from a plain state dump. It never names a sibling such as set_code or edit_code, but the closing instruction 'Call it before every change' does suggest how it relates to those mutation tools.

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 line 'Call it before every change' clearly states when to use this tool, tying it to the mutation siblings. The description does not name an alternative or list a when-not case, but the context and the rule are clear.

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