Beeps, sounds and braille

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful semantics about what the log actually contains (progress-bar beeps, error sounds, browse-mode sounds) and what a speechCanceled entry means. It does not discuss ordering, retention window, or that results are incremental via lastId — though the schema covers the latter.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the enumeration of output kinds, which is the highest-value information. The closing sentence slightly restates the 'speech was cut off by newer speech' point already made in the first sentence, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

With rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description only needs to explain what the tool surfaces and why it matters, which it does. The one gap is that it never points at nvda_get_speech_history as the complementary tool, leaving the relationship between the two history tools to inference.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining what the OutputKind values actually represent in practice — beeps from progress bars and errors, sounds from browse mode and errors — which the bare enum values do not convey. It also motivates include_speech as a way 'to see the whole picture'.

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 verb and resource ('Show what NVDA put out besides speech') and enumerates the exact event categories captured: beeps, sounds, braille, and speech cancellation. The phrase 'besides speech' implicitly separates it from nvda_get_speech_history, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

It gives a concrete diagnostic scenario — 'Speech being cut off is a common cause of "NVDA started to say it and then didn't"' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, and the decision between this and nvda_get_speech_history (versus the include_speech flag) is left implicit.

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