Get mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the payload includes channel settings plus resolved device and profile names, but with no output schema it does not describe the shape, completeness, or error behavior (e.g., unknown mode name).

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but it is not front-loaded with an action verb, so the reader must reconstruct the operation from the tool name. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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 one-parameter read tool whose safety is fully covered by annotations and whose parameter is fully documented in schema, the description supplies the key missing piece — what the returned object contains (channel settings, device and profile names). Only lookup-failure behavior is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 100% and the single parameter's schema already says 'Mode uid or exact name'. The description adds nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, ambiguity between uid and name), so it neither compensates nor detracts — baseline 3.

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 is a noun phrase ('The channel settings saved in a mode...') with no verb, so the retrieval action is only implied by the tool name. It does hint at scope (a single mode's saved settings plus device/profile names), which distinguishes it loosely from list_modes, but it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like get_channel_settings or list_modes.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_modes, get_channel_settings, or activate_mode. The only implicit cue is the singular 'mode' in the schema, which the agent must infer means 'fetch one mode's detail'.

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