sound_get_palette

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: that palettes live only in this MCP process (in-memory lifecycle) and that an expired or unknown ID is reported in the result rather than raised as an error, telling the agent to plan again.

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?

Very concise: the core lookup action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral note follows immediately. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With annotations covering safety traits, a rich (though small) input schema, and an output schema present, the description provides all the essential behavioral context an agent needs: the in-process nature of palettes, the non-throwing error behavior, and the recovery path. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, with the palette_id parameter fully documented as coming from sound_plan_palette. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (previously planned sound palette) keyed by palette_id. This is distinct from sound_plan_palette (creates) and sound_apply_palette (applies), so siblings are implicitly differentiated.

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 the usage context – retrieving a previously planned palette – and effectively tells the agent 'plan again if it is gone', which points to sound_plan_palette as the alternative. However, it does not explicitly name sound_plan_palette or clearly state when to use this versus sound_get_inventory.

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