Kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the exact fields returned (type, modeled-on, ear state with judging exam/ledger row, range, render cost, gaps) and explains what the family and voice parameters surface. It never explicitly states read-only/no side effects, but the read-only character is strongly implied by the listing nature.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is dense run-on prose in long parenthetical sentences. The long family enumeration is genuinely useful given the empty schema, so it earns its place, yet the meandering sentence structure hurts scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description instead focuses on what data exists and how to select it. The one omission — the undocumented 'project' parameter — is the only substantive completeness gap for a 3-param 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% and there are no enums, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, giving an extensive enumerated list for 'family' (including grouping tokens like 'synths' and 'effects' and effect families) and explaining that 'voice' returns one voice or effect in full. The third parameter, 'project', is never documented, leaving a real gap.

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 resource and its contents: instruments and effects by family, with type, modeled-on target, ear state, range, render cost, and open gaps. It is very clear what 'kit' returns. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like voices_list, sound_list, or instrument_show.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for it when someone asks what instruments exist, whether there is an organ, a sax or an 808-style kit, which voices passed a blind listening test, or what an instrument family still lacks.' This is clear triggering context, though it names no explicit alternative or exclusion.

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