beep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it plays a quick beep, uses a preset sample, and returns a status message. This is transparent about the immediate behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the sound is played on the device, whether it is asynchronous, or why a 'beep' tool exists alongside 'play_sound'. For a simple tool, this level 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?

The description is extremely concise: three short statements ('Play a quick beep sound', 'Uses preset sound sample 1 for the beep', 'Returns: Status message'). Every sentence adds information. It is front-loaded with the main action and has no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, simple sound-playing tool, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what sample it uses, and what it returns. The output schema exists but the description simplifies it to 'Status message'. Gaps include whether it plays on the local machine or remote device, and how it differs from play_sound. Given the low complexity, a 3 is fair.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to worry about. The description correctly indicates the tool takes no arguments. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description cannot meaningfully add parameter detail beyond confirming that no input is required.

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 the tool's function: 'Play a quick beep sound.' It identifies a specific action (play) and resource (a beep sound). While there is a sibling tool 'play_sound' that is likely more general, 'beep' itself is distinct enough with its name and concise description. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing it from play_sound, but it is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose.

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: when a quick beep sound is needed, this tool plays one. It notes it uses 'preset sound sample 1,' which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the sibling 'play_sound' tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context in which this should not be used. The guidance is implied by the name and description, but could be more explicit.

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