refresh_sound_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that the operation rescans the library in response to new content, but says nothing about how long a rescan takes, whether the library is unavailable while it runs, whether calling it repeatedly is safe, or what it returns. Adequate for a zero-parameter, low-risk refresh, but with real gaps in operational transparency.

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 action front-loaded and the only qualifier (the trigger condition) kept as a trailing parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves no room for the operational context flagged elsewhere.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to invoke it. It does not cover the outcome of the rescan (whether it confirms discovered content) or any disruption the agent should warn about, leaving the definition minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 baseline is 4 and there are no argument meanings that need to be explained. Nothing in the description is required beyond what is already present.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Rescan the sound library," which is a clear read/refresh action an agent can distinguish from siblings like find_sound or search_sounds that query rather than rescan. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 parenthetical "(after installing new content)" supplies an explicit triggering condition for when to call it, which is more than implied usage. It gives no when-not guidance, no mention of cost/frequency, and no named alternative, so it stops at clear context without exclusions.

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