get_parameters

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

Without annotations, the description's use of 'Read' indicates a non-destructive operation, but it does not specify the return format or potential errors for invalid parameters. Still, the read-only nature is transparent.

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, concise sentence covering the core functionality and listing parameter options, with no superfluous words.

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?

The description is sufficient for basic usage, but since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly state what the read operation returns (e.g., a list of points). This is a minor gap, but the tool's purpose is clear and likely inferable.

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 description adds the list of valid paramName values, which is helpful beyond the schema's generic description. The other parameters (minOnset, maxOnset) have schema descriptions, and the description does not contradict or add much, but the paramName enumeration compensates for the 60% schema coverage.

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 states the tool reads automation curve points for a given parameter, and it enumerates the supported parameter names (pitchDelta, vibratoEnv, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_parameters that write data.

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 usage as a read operation but does not explicitly compare it with set_parameters or mention conditions like read-only context. However, the intent is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this getter.

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