Diagnose audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the tool checks for muted sources and missing devices, strongly implying a read-only diagnostic nature. Yet it doesn't explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it describe any prerequisites or return behavior beyond the output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that starts with the verb 'diagnose' and includes two specific examples of what it addresses. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description adequately scopes the tool's purpose. It could be more explicit about the tool being read-only and how the results are presented, but such details are partially covered by the output schema and sibling context, making it sufficient.

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 schema coverage is complete at 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to clarify.

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 diagnoses audio problems, specifically citing muted sources and missing devices. This distinguishes it from broader diagnostics like diagnose_obs and from audio control tools like mute_source or set_volume, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage when audio issues are suspected, and the cited examples give concrete triggers. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like list_audio_sources or get_audio_status, so an agent might need to infer when to prefer this diagnostic over direct audio queries.

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