list_sounds

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not explain what a 'sound' is in this domain, whether the target must be valid, or any potential errors. It simply restates the operation without enriching the agent's understanding of side effects or requirements.

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 extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently worded. It is a single simple sentence, which is acceptable for brevity, but the lack of any useful content means the structure does not earn its place; it provides no actionable information beyond the name.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned list of sounds looks like, but it does not. It also fails to clarify the required parameters, despite the tool having two parameters. With no annotations on parameters and a generic description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for 'path' and 'target'. The tool description only mentions 'a target' but does not explain the 'path' parameter at all, nor the relationship between them. With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 'List sounds of a target' is a bare restatement of the tool name, providing no additional detail on what 'sounds' or 'target' refer to. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_costumes' or 'list_blocks', all of which share the same pattern. The verb 'list' and resource 'sounds of a target' are minimal, but the lack of any specifics about the context makes it vague.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a target opened, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_costumes' or 'get_script'. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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