list_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: results are sorted newest-first and each entry carries a duration. Read-only intent is only implied by 'list', and nothing is said about pagination, whether all files are returned, or error behavior when the directory is empty.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource, ordering, and payload front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than padded, so the brevity is a plus even though a fragment reads slightly truncated.

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 tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back in broad terms (audio files, newest first, with duration). However, since there is no output schema, the burden of describing the returned fields falls on the description, and it omits file paths/names, count/pagination limits, and the scope of the directory.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no filtering input is available, so there is no schema detail missing that an agent would need.

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 names the resource precisely (audio files in the output directory) and adds distinguishing detail on ordering and payload ('newest first, with duration'), so an agent can tell it apart from generation siblings like text_to_speech or compose_music. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other list_* siblings, which keeps it below 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which alternative to use. The 'output directory' framing implies usage context, but the agent gets no routing guidance versus list_models, list_voices, or check_subscription.

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