list_audio_sinks

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declare this as a safe, local read, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds only the domain scope (output devices), with nothing about whether sinks are ordered, whether one is flagged as default, or what identifies the device.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource named first and the clarifying examples attached; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it enumerates. It stops short of describing the returned fields or noting that an entry can be passed to set_default_sink, which would have closed the loop.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema and description are already aligned at baseline 4. No parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 and resource ('List all audio output devices') and the parenthetical (speakers, headphones) disambiguates it from list_audio_sources, which would cover microphones/inputs. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_audio_sources or in relation to set_default_sink; the only signal is the implicit 'list' semantics. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before choosing a default sink.

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