volume_up

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and has open-world side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action; it does not disclose any side effects, state changes, prerequisites, or failure modes. While it does not contradict annotations, it provides zero added value over the structured data.

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 immediately states the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is a model of conciseness for a simple 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?

Given the tool mutates state (readOnlyHint=false) and has open-world behavior (openWorldHint=true), the description is incomplete. It does not mention any caveats (e.g., what happens at maximum volume), how results are returned (no output schema), or any prerequisites. The one-sentence description leaves out important context an agent would need to use it safely and effectively. Even for a simple tool, more context is required when annotations already signal mutating behavior.

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 schema already covers the sole parameter 'step' with a clear description ('Nombre de fois a augmenter (default: 1)') and bounds (min/max). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter. The description's mention of 'augmente' implicitly relates to the step, but this is redundant with the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Augmente') and resource ('le volume du Denon'), making the action obvious. It distinguishes from volume_down and mute tools by use of 'augmente', but it does not explicitly differentiate from volume_set or mention the incremental nature, which is implied rather than stated. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb. No alternatives are mentioned, no exclusions are provided, and no context about preferred scenarios is given. This falls short of even implied usage guidelines beyond the basic action.

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