get_audio_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly mentions 'This tool queries GET /api/audio/volume' and 'Retrieve,' indicating a read-only operation. It also describes the return type (AudioVolumeInfo) and its single field, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss error cases or side effects, though for a simple getter these are minimal.

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 description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a concise implementation note, return value details, and a practical use case. It is slightly verbose with the 'Returns an AudioVolumeInfo object containing: - volume (int)' list, but that information is useful given the lack of an output schema. Every section contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it does it (GET endpoint), what it returns, and when to use it. It even mentions a real-world use case, which helps an agent decide to invoke it. No critical information is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameters that do not exist. It adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve the audio volume setting from the Busy Bar device.' This uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('audio volume setting'), and explicitly names the device. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing on audio volume, which is unique among them.

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 'Use case' section provides a clear context: 'Check or audit volume settings before playing audio notifications or tones; useful for confirming device is configured at an audible level.' This tells an agent when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools for audio volume, explicit exclusions are unnecessary.

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