obs_audio_routing_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds: it states 'Read-only', lists specific failure classes it detects, notes that no-audio inputs are skipped rather than flagged, and describes edge cases like sync offsets past ~960 ms. This is far beyond a generic read-only label.

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 longer than usual but every clause earns its place; it front-loads the core purpose and then details failure modes. Minor redundancy between 'explicit list of what is misrouted' and the subsequent list of failures, but overall it is well-structured and readable.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what the tool returns, which input categories are included, which are skipped, the specific misrouting conditions detected, and when to prefer it over alternatives. This is unusually complete for a diagnostic tool.

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 input schema already covers the only parameter (onlyProblems) with a clear description and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific, valuable function: 'The whole audio routing picture in one call' with explicit outputs (tracks, monitoring, sync offset, balance, misrouted list). It also clearly differentiates from alternatives by framing this as the aggregate diagnostic versus per-input requests.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Start here when audio is wrong and you do not yet know which source is at fault.' It also names the alternative ('four requests per input') and explains why this tool is preferred for comparison-driven diagnosis, making the usage context clear.

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