List previous results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them by stating 'Reads the local folder only: no account needed and nothing is sent anywhere', which tells the agent no auth is required and no network side effects occur. It stops short of describing what happens when the folder is empty or missing.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding: purpose and ordering first, then the privacy/locality guarantee. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: when to reach for this tool and that it touches only the local folder.

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%, so both the 'tool' filter and 'limit' (with min/max bounds) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'newest first' ordering that the limit field already states, adding no syntax or filtering semantics of its own. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List previous Audial results'), the scope ('in the results folder'), and the ordering ('newest first'). No sibling tool does listing, so the agent can separate it from generate_music, stem_split, pipeline_status, etc. without opening the schema.

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?

'Use when the user asks where an earlier output went' gives a concrete triggering scenario rather than leaving usage implied. There are no competing alternatives to name, so the absence of explicit exclusions costs little, but the description never says when not to call it (e.g., for remote/account-hosted results).

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