get_input_audio_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that this is a read operation and adds the useful scale context. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid input name), return value type, or whether any state changes occur, which is a moderate gap for a getter.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential scale information. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential range but lacks explicit details about the return value format and error behavior. It is adequate for a minimal getter, but could be more complete by stating what the function returns and any notable edge cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for input_name, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'an input' implying that input_name identifies the audio input, but it does not clearly define acceptable values, naming conventions, or how it relates to the tool's result. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but not enough to fully clarify 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('an input's stereo balance'), and specifies the value range (0.0 full left to 1.0 full right). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_input_audio_balance and get_input_volume, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the getter semantics and the contrast with the setter sibling, but no explicit guidance is provided, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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