list_audio_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys useful scope (which device families appear) but says nothing about ordering, whether disconnected/paired-but-inactive devices are included, or that the call is a side-effect-free read. Reasonable but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb+resource leads and the enumeration is the only elaboration, and it earns its place by bounding scope.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what will be returned (input and output devices across several connection types). It stops short of describing the shape of each returned entry, which is a minor gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is moot here.

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 (list) and resource (audio input/output devices on this Mac) with concrete scope, enumerating the connection types covered. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_audio_zones and list_audio_processes by naming the device domain, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative siblings (list_audio_zones, list_audio_processes, get_audio_status) that an agent might pick instead. The purpose is self-evident, but nothing in the text routes the agent.

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