osc_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' communicates that the operation is non-mutating, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what happens for invalid or nonexistent addresses, whether any address is truly accepted, or what the response payload looks like, so some transparency is missing.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The usage constraint is stated in the second sentence, making the description easy to scan.

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 low-complexity one-parameter getter, the description covers what the tool does, how the address is formatted, and when to choose it. The only notable gap is the lack of an output schema or an explicit statement of return semantics, but this does not seriously block correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates reasonably for the single address parameter by labeling it a raw OSC address and giving '/ch/3/eq/on' as an example. This adds practical format context beyond the schema's pattern constraint of starting with a slash.

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 concrete action ('Read any raw OSC address'), a specific resource ('from the WING'), and gives an illustrative example. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling typed tools by positioning this as the fallback for parameters not covered by 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: for parameters not covered by typed tools. This implies that covered parameters should go through typed tools like set_fader or set_mute, which is clear usage guidance even without naming a single sibling.

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