set_speaker_volume

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the value is the device's actual volume and it is shared with the dashboard slider, so changes are globally visible and persist. It stops short of saying what happens with out-of-range input.

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 compact sentence with the action and range front-loaded and no filler. Every clause ('actual volume', '0–100', 'shared with the dashboard slider') adds usable information.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: target device, unit/range, and global effect. Only edge-case behavior (invalid values, error vs clamp) and the return value are unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden — and it does, defining percent as volume on a 0–100 scale and tying it to the physical speaker. Only the out-of-range/clamping behavior for percent is left unspecified.

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 (set the Pi speaker's volume) plus the valid range, and 'actual' clarifies it targets real hardware rather than a logical playback stream. It is distinguishable from siblings like speak/play_audio, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for adjusting hardware volume when audio output is too loud/quiet. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. per-stream volume via control_spotify).

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