audio_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Report,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), explain what 'integration support' means, or describe the nature of the returned information. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence with a clear structure: verb plus a list of reported items. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. However, the brevity sacrifices informativeness—each listed item (e.g., 'targets') is ambiguous, so while the structure is efficient, the content could be sharper.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully clarify what information the agent will receive and how it relates to the broader capability set. It lists items but leaves terms like 'targets' and 'optional integration support' undefined. It also fails to distinguish this from sibling capability tools, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already trivially covers all parameter semantics (there are none). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything. It correctly adds no parameter-related details.

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 states a verb ('Report') and lists specific resources (platform, safety limits, REW endpoint, targets, integration support), giving a general sense of a capabilities query tool. However, it does not differentiate this from numerous sibling tools like audio_dsp_adapter_capabilities or rew_diagnostic_capabilities, leaving ambiguity about its exact scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for when this specific 'audio_capabilities' query is appropriate, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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