osc_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns both the raw value and the mixer's text readout, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; minor gaps like error handling are acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 concise sentences with no waste: the first states the action and output, the second states its role as a fallback. Information is front-loaded and directly useful.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return value. It lacks details on address validity or potential errors, but given annotations cover safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero description coverage for the 'address' parameter, but the description provides an example format (/ch/01/eq/2/f) and clarifies it accepts any OSC address, adding meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 action (read) and resource (any OSC address) with an example, and explicitly labels itself as an escape hatch for settings other tools don't cover, distinguishing it from specialized siblings like set_fader or set_eq.

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?

Provides clear context: use when other tools don't cover a setting, implying specialized tools are preferred when available. Lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites but the 'escape hatch' phrasing is sufficient.

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