describe_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by disclosing what is NOT captured (playhead, play state, meters ignored) and the stability contract of fingerprint/hash values. Doesn't state output size or performance characteristics, but the semantic-stability contract is valuable behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose; every sentence carries information (structure, identity, stable comparison, lighter mode). Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what's returned (settings, tracks with address/kind/mixer/devices/clips, scenes) and identity semantics. Return value shape is inferred rather than explicit, but adequate for an agent to call correctly and interpret fingerprints.

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% (include_clips documented with type and default). The description adds the consequence of the flag ('clip counts and hashes stay'), which is helpful but baseline 3 applies when schema already covers the parameter.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'A compact map of the whole Set'. Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling getters (get_properties, get_health, get_capabilities) by describing a full structural snapshot including tracks, scenes, mixer state, devices and clips.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'compare fingerprints to detect edits, or hashes to see which track changed' and 'Set include_clips=false for a lighter summary'. Names concrete alternatives for achieving specific goals.

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