list_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the fallback mechanism ('uses players.json if configured; otherwise falls back to a live network scan') and implies read-only behavior ('works with zero setup'). No hidden side effects or errors are mentioned, but the behavior is described honestly enough for an agent to anticipate results.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action, then provides the fallback context. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description gives enough context for the agent to decide when to use it: a simple list with zero setup. It mentions the fallback and references discover_players for deeper scanning. The output fields are implied by the description ('by name, with their host and port'), so the agent knows what to expect even without reading the output schema.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to describe beyond the schema. The description correctly omits parameter details. The score is high because the absence of parameters is clear and no additional meaning is needed.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Bluesound players', and specifies the output fields (name, host, port). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool discover_players by mentioning the fallback, so the agent can easily tell them apart.

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 explains when to use the tool: when a simple list is needed and zero setup is desired. It also indicates the fallback behavior and references discover_players for more details. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'zero setup' phrasing implies the typical use case.

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