Instrument Help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Help' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, and it discloses the returned content (parameter reference with defaults), but it never states read-only semantics explicitly nor explains the role of the 'project' parameter. Reasonable but not thorough for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the resource and content type come first, followed by the value enumeration. The long inline list is dense but each element earns its place as it defines valid inputs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the tool is low-complexity. It conveys what it returns and which types are valid, which is most of what an agent needs. The only real gap is the undocumented 'project' parameter and the absence of any read-only confirmation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for 'type' by enumerating the accepted values and the synth=sprite alias (which the schema does not encode as an enum). However, the 'project' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource: it returns the 'full parameter reference (with defaults)' for an instrument type. That is clear enough for an agent to know this is a reference/help lookup rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like instrument_show, voice_help, or fx_help, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it to learn the valid parameters for a given instrument type. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as instrument_show or voice_help, which cover adjacent concerns. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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