fmod_system_warn

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Logs a warning.' It fails to mention side effects, return values, or failure modes. This is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the trivial.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices substance. While front-loaded, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose. The structure is minimal but acceptable.

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 but many similar siblings, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, potential errors, or when to prefer this over related tools like fmod_console_warn.

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 0%, and the tool description adds no meaning to the 'msg' parameter. It does not explain what values are appropriate, format, or purpose. The parameter is entirely opaque, forcing the agent to guess.

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 tool logs a warning, which is a specific verb and resource. However, among sibling tools like fmod_console_warn, it does not differentiate between system.warn and console.warn, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as fmod_console_warn or fmod_system_error, nor does it offer any context for proper invocation.

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