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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool lists available files and the default sound, and it details the resolution order, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it), nor does it describe what the response looks like or possible error conditions. This is adequate but not rich beyond the immediate action.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that leads with the primary purpose and then provides the resolution order without any filler. Every clause carries meaning, and the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main functionality and even adds the resolution order, which is beyond the minimum. However, it does not specify the exact format of the returned list (e.g., array of filenames, structure of default sound), so an agent must infer that from the description or experience. This is a minor gap but not significant enough to lower it further.

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, so the schema is inherently complete and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. It also does not introduce any misleading parameter-related information.

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 tool's function: it lists audio files available to the notify tool and the currently selected default sound. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling 'notify' (which sends notifications rather than listing sounds).

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 context about what the tool lists (sounds for notify) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no direct guidance such as 'use this to check available sounds before calling notify' or any note about when not to use it. The resolution order is more about default sound determination than usage conditions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively covers the default sound resolution order, the accepted file formats for custom sounds, and guidance on writing title/message. It does not mention any side effects like whether the call blocks or returns a value, but for a notification tool this level of detail is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage trigger, then introduces the title/message guidance, and finally details sound resolution. It is a bit long but every sentence carries useful information. The structure is logical and skimmable, though slightly verbose for an agent scanning quickly.

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 simple nature of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use it, how to write parameters, and the fallback behavior for sound. No critical information is missing, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing example titles/messages and explaining the `sound` parameter's behavior (absolute path, supported audio formats, override logic). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the raw property descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('play', 'show') and resource ('notification sound', 'system banner'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also gives concrete examples of when to use it, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_sounds without needing explicit exclusion.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('whenever a task is done, something needs the user's attention, or the user asks to be notified'), which is clear guidance. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' component for a full 5.

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