list_waveforms

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the UND-option prerequisite and the volatility warning that waveforms can vanish after power-off. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits error behavior if the option is missing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and prerequisite before the caution. Slightly redundant: 'can disappear after power-off' and 'never assume yesterday's waveform still exists' restate the same volatility point.

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, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and the key volatility caveat. It could still say what the listing returns (names? slots?), which is the only remaining 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so by the scoring baseline this is a 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier: 'List existing volatile ARB waveforms'. An agent immediately knows this enumerates waveforms rather than inspecting or playing one. It stops short of 5 because it never names the adjacent siblings (inspect_waveform, play_waveform) that a caller might confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it ('Check this before restoring playback; never assume yesterday's voice waveform still exists') and states a prerequisite ('Requires installed UND option'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 5 threshold.

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