list_samples

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: samples live on USB storage and there are exactly 10 slots per category, which bounds the result size and clarifies the scope of the read. It stops short of describing pagination or the shape of returned entries.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the parameter default, with no filler. The register is telegraphic ('10 slots each', 'all four lists'), which is dense but still parseable.

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 trivial read-only lister with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the categories, the default behavior, and the slot count. Only the returned fields per sample are left unspecified, a minor gap for so simple a tool.

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 for the single 'kind' parameter, and it does: it names the four categories the enum values correspond to and states that omitting kind returns all four lists. That is precisely the meaning an agent needs to choose a value or skip it.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it lists samples stored on the pedal, and enumerates the four sample categories (cab IRs, drive, pre-amp, entire-amp). It is clearly separable from siblings like list_presets, list_loops, and list_effect_catalog, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 sentence 'Without kind, all four lists' usefully documents the default/no-argument behavior, which is the main usage decision for this tool. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling listers (list_presets, list_loops) or when to filter by kind rather than fetching everything.

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