read_current_sound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description clearly states it is a read operation ('Show'). It does not disclose any edge cases (e.g., what happens when nothing is playing) or side effects, but for a simple read-only tool with zero parameters, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by concrete usage examples. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from similar tools. No gaps are apparent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema has no properties to cover. The description adds no parameter semantics, but it is not required.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as the currently playing sound in Space Dust. It explicitly distinguishes itself from named-preset operations by saying 'without the user naming a preset,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like read_preset.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('this sound', 'what I'm hearing', 'the current patch') and states 'Use this whenever they say...' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for when a preset is named, so it's slightly less complete than an explicit recommendation.

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