reachy_list_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation and provides no hint of destructive side effects. However, it does not describe what the returned list contains, whether ordering/format is guaranteed, or whether robot connectivity is required. For a simple list tool 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, and there is no redundant restating of the name or parameters.

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?

Given the tool's trivial parameter surface and simple listing behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could add more detail about return format, but for a read-only list operation this is a minor 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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension warrants a solid score.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all saved audio recordings on the robot'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like reachy_play_audio or reachy_check_microphone because it is the only one scoped to enumerating saved recordings.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose: enumerate saved audio recordings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer this is for listing rather than playing, capturing, or checking audio.

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