mixer_get_eq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only operation via the verb 'Return,' which is the key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior for invalid track indices, whether frequencies are in Hz or gains in dB, or any edge-case handling.

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?

One tightly worded sentence with zero filler; the core action ('Return') and the payload ('3-band mixer EQ (gains + frequencies)') are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essence of what the tool does and roughly what it returns. But it leaves gaps: no parameter semantics, no return format or unit details, and no failure behavior. Additional detail on units or the return structure would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of the 'track' parameter. The name 'track' and the phrase 'mixer EQ' imply it references a mixer track, but indexing, bounds, and whether it refers to channel or mixer track numbers are left ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 and resource: 'Return 3-band mixer EQ (gains + frequencies).' It clearly identifies what the tool does and what data it produces. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mixer_set_eq_band or mixer_track_info, but the get/set pairing and the EQ focus make differentiation mostly self-evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions mixer_set_eq_band as the write counterpart, nor mixer_track_info which may also surface EQ data, and provides no exclusions or context for selecting this tool.

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