audio_dsp_adapter_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'explicit configuration needed' hints at the output, but it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected), output format, or error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is concise, direct, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no wasted content, and it conveys the essential scope immediately.

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 captures the essential purpose and what the user can expect (configuration details). It is complete enough for an inspection tool of this simplicity, though it would benefit from a brief note on the returned data structure, which is absent.

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 per calibration rules the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and there is nothing to explain. This score reflects that the description does not introduce confusion about parameters.

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 uses a clear verb ('Inspect') and specifies the resource ('cross-platform DSP export/apply adapters') plus what it reveals ('explicit configuration needed for each'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic capability tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling, so it is not a full 5.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as audio_capabilities or audio_dsp_apply_plan. There is no mention of contexts where this tool is preferred or not, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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