audacity_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool does not contact Audacity, implying a read-only, local operation. However, it does not say what kind of runtime/server details are returned, whether any errors are possible, or how the information is structured, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler. The key action, object, and the important behavioral qualifier are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool, and the description covers the essential reason to call it and what it returns at a high level. It could be slightly more informative by listing example runtime fields or clarifying the output format, but it remains complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 and an empty schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description's clarity about being a local, non-Audacity informational call is sufficient; no parameter explanations are needed.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('local server/runtime information'), and adds a critical scope qualifier ('without contacting Audacity') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like audacity_health or raw_device_info. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening any 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?

The phrase 'without contacting Audacity' gives clear contextual guidance: this tool is appropriate when server/runtime info is needed without involving the Audacity application. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool the context is sufficiently clear.

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