channel_get_activity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool returns live activity and that omitting index returns all channels, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, describe the return units/scale, or mention invalid-index behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the playback usage note adds real value without bloating the definition.

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 one-parameter getter, this is mostly sufficient: it covers purpose, scope, and a usage context. However, with no output schema, the exact return shape and unit of the activity/VU value are left implicit, making it minimum viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by explaining that an omitted index means all channels. It does not clarify whether index is 0-based or what valid channel indices are, but with only one optional parameter this is minimally workable.

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?

States a specific resource (channel activity/VU level) and the scope behavior when no index is given. It is clearly distinct from channel config/setter tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with mixer_get_peaks or playlist_track_activity.

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 a concrete use case: 'during playback to confirm a channel is actually sounding.' This is clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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