insanitii_audio_feedback_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Verify' and the 'report' naming imply a read-only validation action, but the description does not explicitly state that no assets are modified or what side effects, if any, occur.

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 core description is concise and front-loaded. The KB reference adds useful context, though the example line is redundant for a zero-parameter tool and could be omitted.

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 report with an output schema, the description adequately identifies the verification targets and points to relevant KB context. It could be more complete by explaining when to prefer it over sibling insanitii reports.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. With an empty input schema, there is no semantic gap to fill.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and clearly identifies what is verified: 'SoundWave assets' and 'level audio feedback director wiring'. This distinguishes it from sibling insanitii report tools that target different systems.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling insanitii_*_report tools. The KB reference and example call provide context but do not state usage conditions or alternatives.

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