get_phonemes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the asynchronous converter behavior via the `complete` flag and advises retrying, which adds meaningful context. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the verb 'Get' implies it.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use case and a vital async note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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, the description sufficiently covers the return scope (phonemes plus overrides) and the important `complete` flag behavior. It also situates the tool's use case. It could be more exhaustive about exact return shape, but it is complete enough for a focused getter tool.

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% for both parameters, including detailed descriptions for `group` (default behavior and SV Studio 2 nuance) and `track` (1-based). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the phonemes used for synthesis for every note in a group, specifically SV's text-to-phoneme output alongside user overrides. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_phonemes and get_notes with a specific verb and resource.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Useful to check pronunciation before or after edits') that conveys when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to recognize its purpose relative to siblings.

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