list_audio_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the list is of active consumers (a transient live state), which is useful. However, it omits permissions, ordering, and whether the result is point-in-time or continuously updated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the resource and its 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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe the return shape (e.g., per-process identifiers) or when the snapshot is taken, leaving minor 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. No parameter information is needed and none is missing.

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?

Combines a specific verb ('List') with the resource ('processes currently using audio hardware') and enumerates concrete examples (players, browsers, voice apps). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_audio_devices, which enumerates hardware, not consumers of it.

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 'currently using' phrasing implies a live-snapshot use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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