generate_sound_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The word 'mock' hints at non-real output, but the description does not disclose whether generation is synchronous or asynchronous, what the returned object contains, or any rate limits or side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that communicates core purpose without any filler. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 presence of sibling get_generation_status strongly suggests this tool might return a job ID requiring polling, but the description omits this critical workflow context. Additionally, the duration_seconds parameter is not explained. While an output schema exists, the description fails to convey the overall generation lifecycle.

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 compensate. It clarifies prompt as a 'text prompt', but duration_seconds is not mentioned at all; the schema only provides a title and default, which is insufficient for understanding units, constraints, or behavior.

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 and resource: 'Generate a mock sound-effect WAV from a text prompt.' It clearly distinguishes from get_generation_status and implies a different output than generate_music, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 context is clear (use when you want a sound effect from a prompt), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over generate_music, nor mention of asynchronous behavior that might require get_generation_status. It's implied rather than stated.

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