Enumerate local audio devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it explicitly labels the operation 'Read-only' — a meaningful safety disclosure next to many mutation siblings. It also adds specifics about what is captured (stable node IDs, current defaults) that go beyond a generic 'list devices.' It stops short of describing rate limits or output size, but for a read-only enumeration the disclosure is solid.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and scope ('List PipeWire/PulseAudio output sinks...'), then packs the return details. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the title.

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?

Complexity is low (no params) and the description thoroughly covers the scope of devices and fields returned. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape or format of the returned data, so an agent cannot anticipate whether results come as a flat list, keyed by node ID, etc. For a pure enumeration tool, the response shape is the main gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema gap to compensate for. The description still clarifies what the tool will surface in its (unspecified) response, which is all an agent needs given there is nothing to configure.

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 names a specific verb (List), a concrete resource (PipeWire/PulseAudio output sinks and real input sources), and enumerates exactly what is returned (node IDs, availability, ports, mute state, defaults). Mentioning 'output sinks' vs 'input sources' distinguishes it from siblings like audio_sink_availability, which is narrower, and from setter tools like audio_device_set_default.

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 read-only framing and the enumeration verb imply when to use it, but the description gives no explicit 'use this when' context and names no alternatives even though closely related siblings exist (audio_sink_availability, audio_output_switch, media_source_switch). An agent must infer that this is the general listing tool rather than being told when to prefer it over audio_sink_availability.

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