Speaker tuning status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait for a status tool and signals non-mutation. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, output format, or whether it might return partial data (e.g., if service is not installed). For a simple read, this is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and the specific state components. No filler or redundancy; every word 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the specific state dimensions (installation, service, virtual-sink, default-sink, hardware-match), giving the agent a clear picture of the returned information. It does not explain terms like 'hardware-match' or describe output format, but for a status read tool this is reasonably complete given its simplicity.

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, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain; this is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('Omarchy speaker-tuning ... state') while enumerating the exact components (installation, service, virtual-sink, default-sink, hardware-match). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio_sink_availability or hardware_readiness, which focus on different aspects.

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 alternatives. There are many related status tools (e.g., audio_sink_availability, hardware_readiness), but the description does not mention conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer its use case from the resource name alone.

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