get_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Gets' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and the mention of 'percentage' discloses the output unit. It does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, but the phrasing is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It delivers all necessary information compactly and is 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description tells the agent exactly what it does and what it returns (volume percentage), making it fully self-contained for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and a clear resource ('current macOS audio output volume percentage'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from its sibling tool set_volume, making its purpose immediately obvious.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need the current volume), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. With a simple getter, usage context is fairly obvious, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of set_volume' guidance.

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