get_device_routing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds specific behavioral context: it reads sidechain routing for Compressor/Gate devices and provides available options. Does not mention error handling but is consistent and informative.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences: first states purpose, second adds context and actionable next steps. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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?

Covers the main functionality and constraints (device type, read-only, output usage). Could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid indices or non-sidechain device) but output schema likely covers return type. Good overall.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters track_index and device_index beyond their names. For a two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, more semantic guidance is needed.

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 it reads device audio-input (sidechain) routing, specifying both current state and available options. It distinguishes from siblings like set_device_routing and get_track_routing by mentioning 'Read' and contrasting with the setter.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to see sidechain routing) and that it applies only to sidechain-capable devices (Compressor, Gate). Also suggests using output with set_device_routing. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.

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