audio_host_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without changing routing,' which is a critical behavioral guarantee for a read tool. It does not mention other behavioral aspects (e.g., latency, privileges needed, or whether it caches results), but for a simple read with no params, this is adequate.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key caveat. No wasted words and appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it identifies what will be read (host audio devices and defaults) and the side-effect guarantee (no routing changes). It could elaborate on return format, but with no output schema an agent might expect more detail; still, the core context is sufficient.

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 schema is 100% covered. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('host audio devices and defaults'), and an explicit non-mutation guarantee. It is clear what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like rew_audio_inventory or audio_workspace_scan, which could also list audio devices, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 usage context (host-level hardware read) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion cases. With no annotations and a large sibling set, a clearer when-to-use note would improve the score.

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