raw_pluck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the tool may open a dialog or change project state, but this is vague and lacks specifics (e.g., what dialog, what state change, whether it is destructive). The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' implies the description is incomplete and the agent must seek external information, which reduces 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, though the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat redundant or obscure, adding a small amount of noise. Overall it earns its place with minimal waste.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and gives a warning about side effects, but leaves gaps. For a no-argument tool with no output schema, the description should fully explain what the effect does, whether it requires a selection, and the nature of any dialog or state change. The warning is too vague, and the 'inspect command name' suggestion indicates the description is not self-sufficient. An agent would need to look elsewhere to fully understand behavior.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema already states this. The description adds a clarifying 'static no-argument' note, which reinforces the empty schema. Since there is nothing else to document, this is sufficient. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource: generate a plucked tone effect. It also identifies itself as a static no-argument Audacity action. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like effect_reverb or generate_tone, but the specific 'pluck' name and action make it distinguishable. Adequate but not fully explicit about 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a plucked tone effect is desired versus other effects). The warning about possibly opening a dialog or changing project state gives some caution, but it doesn't specify preconditions, selection requirements, or when not to use it. The hint to 'inspect the command name first' is cryptic and not actionable.

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