list_media_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the output contents. It does not say whether enumeration is a passive read, whether the OS may prompt for media permission, or whether the list reflects only currently connected devices. For a hardware-scanning tool this leaves real behavioral gaps.

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 that identifies the action and the scope immediately, with the parenthetical examples earning their place by clarifying what counts as an audio device. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and a zero-parameter read tool has little surface area to cover. The one thing an agent might want — permission behavior or whether devices must be active to appear — is unaddressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter detail is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connected audio input/output devices ... and video/webcam devices'), and enumerates the device classes (microphones, speakers, webcams). That enumeration distinguishes it from the other list/scan siblings such as list_serial_ports, ble_scan_devices, and sigrok_scan_devices without needing the schema.

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 says what is returned but never states when to call it, e.g. as a discovery step before record_audio_sample or capture_camera_snapshot. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool for media hardware.

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