get_audio_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose that the call is a non-mutating read returning a mixer summary — important safety context. It stops short of describing scope for multi-channel systems or any failure behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 tight sentences with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded, followed by a return-value summary. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 a 0-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece by naming what comes back (mute status and volume levels, a mixer summary). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around multi-channel scope.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter-level detail is required or missing.

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 verb+resource ('Get the current state of all audio channels') and enumerates what the state contains (mute status, volume levels). It reads as a clear read-side counterpart to set_audio_volume/set_audio_mute, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 read-only framing implies when to use it (querying mixer state), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over siblings like get_switcher_state or get_stream_state, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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