get_switch_container_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond return structure. It discloses that the tool returns an array of assignment pairs, which is helpful but not required given annotations. Overall, annotations cover safety, and description adds moderate value.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-line summary, two usage sentences, a clear parameter list with examples, and a return type definition. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return structure (array with 'child' and 'stateOrSwitch' fields). The tool has three parameters but is simple; the description covers use cases and parameter constraints, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description documents all three parameters with clear roles and an example for object_name_with_type. It also specifies the mutual exclusivity requirement. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 gets 'switch/state-to-child assignments for a Switch Container,' specifies what it returns, and uses action verbs like 'Get' and 'Returns.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by being specific to switch container assignments, unlike generic 'get_wwise_object_info' or 'get_blend_track_assignments.'

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 provides usage context: 'Use this to audit assignments, find unassigned switches, or document switch mappings.' It also instructs to provide exactly one of the three parameters. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools, which would improve guidance.

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