audition_sounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavior: a local page is generated, the candidate list is capped at 12, and the page is opened for the user. It omits side effects that matter for a file-generating tool — where the page is written, whether artifacts persist or are cleaned up, and whether the sound_ids must resolve to existing assets.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the core action and the user-facing payoff front-loaded. The wording 'numbering up to 12 candidates' is slightly awkward and could be tightened to 'listing up to 12 candidate sounds.'

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essential mechanic but leaves key gaps: the meaning of label, the behavior of open_browser when set false, and what the caller receives back (a path or URL to the page). Those gaps are meaningful because nothing else in the structured fields fills them.

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 must explain all three parameters and largely does not. 'Up to 12 candidates' implicitly constrains the sound_ids array, but the label parameter (presumably the page title) and the open_browser flag are never mentioned, leaving their effect on the generated page undocumented.

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 gives a concrete verb and artifact: it builds a local listening page containing candidate sounds and opens it. The 'up to 12 candidates' cap and the 'choose by ear' framing make the intent unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like open_sound_studio, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 clause 'so the user can choose by ear' implies the use case: comparing multiple candidates perceptually rather than inspecting one sound. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites (do the sound_ids need to be local files?), and no named alternative for single-sound inspection.

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