soundmagic_capabilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds beyond that by stating the tool 'does not wake the GPU,' which conveys operational behavior and cost implications. It also specifies what information is returned, though it does not describe the exact output format.

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, front-loaded sentence states the purpose and the key behavioral trait with no filler. Every part of the description 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only capabilities tool, the description is fully sufficient: it tells the agent what data will be listed and that the call is lightweight. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is 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 ('List') and names the exact resources it exposes: installed models, validation status, input paths, and complete request schema. This clearly distinguishes the tool from action-oriented siblings like soundmagic_submit and soundmagic_cancel.

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 implies this is the tool to inspect capabilities before submitting work, especially with the note that it does not wake the GPU. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over soundmagic_status or when it should be called, leaving the usage context implicit rather than prescriptive.

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