sound_effects

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool generates an audio file and returns the absolute path, with parameter constraints like duration range and influence scale. It does not mention edge cases or limitations.

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 structured in a clean Args block followed by a return statement. Each sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the parameter count.

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 6 parameters and no output schema provided in the input (though context says one exists), the description covers all inputs and the return value. It is complete for a generative 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must and does explain all 6 parameters with examples and constraints (e.g., duration 0.5–30, influence 0–1). It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying defaults and behavior when omitted.

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 starts with 'Generate a sound effect from a text prompt,' which clearly states the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like speech_to_text or compose_music.

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 each parameter's effect but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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