Audio status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the scope and content of the response, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only, describe return format, or mention potential side effects. Some transparency is provided, but not fully.

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. No filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless status tool.

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 simple status retrieval with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is adequate. It covers the scope and content, but lacks explicit contextual guidance on when to use it. Given its low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 takes zero parameters, yielding a baseline of 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, so the maximum baseline 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 clearly states the resource ('audio status') and scope ('all audio-capable sources'), and enumerates specific fields (mute/volume). Although it omits an explicit verb, the tool name 'get' supplies the action. It differentiates from siblings like get_volume, which targets a specific source.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or suggest alternatives like list_audio_sources or get_volume. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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