sfx_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explains the output granularity for every section value (compact field list vs full JSON schema vs preset specs) and frames the call as a preliminary read step. It does not explicitly state 'read-only', but the documentation context and the directive to call it before designing make side effects unlikely.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first frames the tool, the second enumerates parameter options in pipe-delimited form, and the third gives a usage directive. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter documentation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it defines all possible inputs, what they return, and the recommended invocation order relative to the design workflow.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fully documents the single section parameter and enumerates all accepted values ('all', 'schema', 'json_schema', 'cookbook', 'presets') with their exact return scopes. This is excellent compensation for the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as the documentation resource for sound design and enumerates the content sections, making it distinct from the sibling rendering/tweaking tools. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb ('get', 'fetch'), so it falls just short of a perfect clarity 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call with all once before designing sounds.' It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations, so no ambiguity remains.

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