get_supported_sample_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does clarify that the result is about the connected device and that values are reported in Hz, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether an error occurs when no device is connected, or whether the list is sorted.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core content: all supported sample rates. It contains no filler, redundant rephrasing, or unnecessary details. Every word earns its place for a tool this simple.

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-argument getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the result domain, ties it to the connected device, and gives units. It could be more explicit about the return type or error behavior when no device is connected, but those gaps are minor for such a simple invocation.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or clarify. The schema fully documents the invocation surface, and the description's unit mention adds value around the output rather than parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 communicates that the tool returns all sample rates the connected device supports, expressed in Hz. It is clear and distinguishes itself from get_sample_rate, which presumably returns the current rate rather than the list of supported options. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, so it stops short of full specificity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sample_rate or set_sample_rate. The description implies a capability enumeration use case, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context such as 'use this to discover valid values before setting the rate.' An agent is left to infer usage from the tool name.

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