channel_detail

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the setting categories returned (config, preamp, gate, compressor, EQ bands, fader, sends, groups), but it does not disclose response structure, target format requirements, or error behavior.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Every setting of one strip') followed by the strip types and setting categories. Every item in the list earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only one-parameter tool with safety annotations, the description gives the essential scope and a useful list of included settings. However, since there is no output schema, it leaves the response shape and the exact target value format unspecified, which is a noticeable gap for an agent calling the tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the sole 'target' parameter. The description implies that target selects one strip among the listed types, giving it conceptual meaning, but it does not specify the exact value format (e.g., 'ch1' vs 'channel 1'), so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 identifies the tool as returning all settings of one mixer strip, and it enumerates the supported strip types (channel, aux, FX return, bus, FX send, LR or DCA). It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly contrast with mixer_status or board_overview, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 the many set_* siblings or read_meters. The read-only purpose is implied but not stated as 'use this to inspect current settings before making changes', and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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