raw_input_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is a useful warning about side effects. However, this is vague: it does not specify what project state could change or under what circumstances, and 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable guidance. It is more transparent than a bare 'Opens dialog' but still lacks specifics.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the no-argument detail, and the third provides a side-effect warning. However, 'InputDevice:' is a redundant prefix and 'inspect the command name first' feels cryptic rather than informative, slightly reducing structure quality.

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 no-argument tool, the description covers the core action and warns about possible side effects, which is adequate. But it does not explain the actual behavior of the selection dialog, what happens after selection, or what 'inspect the command name first' means in practice. Given no annotations and no output schema, this leaves notable ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to explain. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it 'no-argument,' which is helpful and aligns with the empty schema. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 opens the recording device selection dialog, which is a specific verb and resource. It also says it is a static no-argument Audacity action, providing immediate clarity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like raw_output_device or raw_device_info, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 description notes it is a static no-argument action, which is useful context, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_output_device or raw_device_info. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not give concrete guidance for selecting this tool. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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