Phone Sounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely does: it discloses audio constraints (under 5 s and 1 MB, wav/ogg/mp3), that clearing is done via path='', the gain range -30 to +6, and that an event with no sound stays silent. It omits where the path resolves and whether assignments persist across restarts.

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 and nearly every clause carries information, but the prose is a run-on with stacked parentheticals that make the event list and the constraints harder to scan than a short bulleted form would be.

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 need no explanation; the description covers event vocabulary, audio constraints, clearing, gain range and silence semantics. The unexplained `sender` parameter and the unstated source of the sound path are the remaining gaps.

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 compensate and mostly does: it enumerates the valid event values (including the stage earcons), explains path='' clears, the gain_db range, and that menu=True (or omitting event) lists assignments. The `sender` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: assign a sound to a named event on the phone page. The event catalogue and the 'menu=True lists the events' clause make the effect concrete. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like phone_vibe or sound_make, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: calling with no event or menu=True lists current assignments, and path='' clears one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use, and no routing against alternative tools (e.g. sound_make for creating the audio, phone_vibe for haptics).

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