audio_workspace_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Inventory' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies anything. It also omits any details about pagination, returns, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 one sentence and concise, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the structure offers no separate sections for usage or parameters. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain what 'inventory' returns (e.g., list of items, counts, metadata) and how the 'home' parameter affects the operation. An agent would have to guess the return format and parameter semantics, making the tool difficult to use 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the 'home' parameter, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent is left without any meaning for the parameter — no hint about what 'home' refers to (e.g., workspace path, home directory, target folder) or its role. This is a critical gap that the description should have filled.

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 it inventories profiles, sessions, measurements, backups, and reports in the AudioCalibration workspace. It uses a specific verb and resource list with a scope, which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other inventory tools like audio_host_inventory or rew_audio_inventory, so it's slightly under a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative inventory tools. The scope (AudioCalibration workspace) is implied but not contrasted with other inventory resources. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions.

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