generate_named_sound

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'generate a sound' but does not specify that it saves a WAV file (only hinted by the filepath parameter) or any side effects, output format, or permissions required. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences are concise. However, the description could be front-loaded with the key detail about saving to a WAV file. Overall no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks critical details about what the tool returns (only filepath suggests output). It does not clarify whether the sound is played, returned as data, or saved. Sibling tools hint at output, but the description alone is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already explains customParams for overriding presets. The description adds context about preset quality but no additional meaning for required parameters (preset, filepath) or nested customParams fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool generates a sound from precomputed named presets, listing examples like 'cry', 'splash', 'bark'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create_custom_sound, generate_sound_effect) by specifying it uses precomputed presets.

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 implies use when a ready-made, finely tuned sound effect is desired, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_custom_sound or randomize_sound. The mention of presets being 'carefully crafted' provides usage context.

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