Audio sink availability

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

Despite having no annotations, the description explicitly declares 'Read-only' which clearly signals a non-mutating operation. It also discloses that it respects 'Omarchy speaker-tuning exclusions', which is a specific behavior that filters results. This adds meaningful transparency beyond a bare 'list sinks' description, though it does not detail what the exclusions are or how they are applied.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the availability attribute and the exclusion qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name. It is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed (sinks), what about them (port availability), and adds the filtering context (exclusions). It does not describe the return format or list the exclusions, but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity. The 'read-only' remark covers safety.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools. The description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('local PulseAudio/PipeWire sinks'), and the key attribute ('whether their ports are available'). It also adds a distinctive qualifier ('respecting Omarchy speaker-tuning exclusions') that differentiates it from generic audio device listing tools. This is precise and immediately understandable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its numerous audio-related siblings (e.g., audio_devices, speaker_tuning_status, audio_output_switch). The read-only nature implies a query before switching, but the description does not state this or name any alternatives. An agent would have to infer the appropriate usage context from the name and siblings.

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