SoundCraft status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral signal — that it reports whether the app is currently running and listening for control, i.e., live state rather than static config — but says nothing about behavior when SoundCraft is absent or the output shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a tight colon-delimited list of inspected facets. No filler, no restatement 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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively enumerates what the response covers (platform, version, plugins, formats, running state), which largely substitutes for one. It falls short only on error/edge behavior, e.g., what is returned when SoundCraft is not installed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the enumerated check list is informational rather than parameter guidance.

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 ('Check') and resource ('SoundCraft installation') and then enumerates the exact facets inspected: platform, executables, version, engine commands, plugins, Pro Tools coverage, formats, and running/listening state. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_soundcraft_catalog or run_soundcraft_commands, which act on content rather than installation health.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the preflight/diagnostic call to make before run_soundcraft_commands or open_in_soundcraft, but the description never says when to use it or when to prefer a sibling. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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