get_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid indices), permissions, or whether it returns all settings or partial data. No additional context beyond the operation type is offered.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. The main action and object are front-loaded, followed by a list of returned parameters. It is efficient and clear in structure, although the list of technical parameter names feels like a dump. Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 tool is simple (two optional parameters, no output schema), but the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain what groupIndex and trackIndex mean, how they relate to 'NoteGroupReference', or what the return format is (beyond listing field names). Given no output schema, an agent needs more context on the expected result and error handling. The description leaves too much to inference.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the two input parameters (groupIndex, trackIndex) at all. The schema only provides defaults and types, leaving their purpose unstated. The description lists the output parameters instead, but does not clarify how the inputs locate the note group or affect the result. Since the description must compensate for zero coverage, it fails completely.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('voice settings'), and enumerates the desired voice parameters (paramLoudness, paramTension, etc.). It clearly differentiates from the sibling set_voice as the getter operation. However, the term 'NoteGroupReference' is technical and not explained, making the resource somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, such as requiring a valid group/track index, nor does it indicate when set_voice would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied by the name and sibling set.

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