get_windytune_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It details all returned fields and explains the ratio's purpose. It doesn't mention side effects (likely none) or prerequisites, but for a read-only getter with no parameters, this is largely 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?

Single sentence listing all fields; front-loaded with purpose. Slightly long but no redundant words. Could be clearer with separation of list items, but acceptable.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is the sole documentation. It comprehensively lists every value returned and explains the ratio. No gaps remain for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds no parameter info since none exist. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers parameters.

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 returns the WindyTune auto-tune state, listing specific fields (enabled, model, ladder, thresholds, timing history, ratio). It distinguishes from sibling getters like get_sound_effect_state or get_widget_state by focusing on auto-tune context.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The description implies it's for reading state, but doesn't contrast with other state getters or provide usage conditions. Given its simplicity and zero parameters, the lack of guidance is acceptable but not optimal.

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