Sound List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only implies a read-only listing and says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The minimal verb 'List' hints at safety, but no concrete behavioral traits are provided.

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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity means it does not fully serve the tool's documentation needs, though that gap is better captured in other dimensions.

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 required parameter, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'project' input or provide any usage context; only the presence of an output schema relieves it of return-value documentation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the required 'project' parameter at all. It fails to explain what 'project' represents or how it affects the listing, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely 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?

The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('the sound bank'), making the tool's basic function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sound_import or sound_make, but the listing operation is distinct enough for an agent to infer its role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sound_import, sound_make, or sound_compare. The description provides no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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