find_samples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the schema itself documents the default-on audition behaviour via the 'listen' parameter. The description's mention that it 'listens to the top results' adds a little framing but largely restates what the schema and annotations already supply, and says nothing about cost/latency of the analysis pass.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, with no padding. The trailing clause 'to say what each actually is' is somewhat colloquial and overlaps with the schema's own 'listen' description, but the surface is still tight.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no required arguments, the description covers the filtering surface adequately but is silent on the shape/timing of results and on how filters combine. Nothing an agent needs to call it is missing, but the picture is only minimally complete.

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 88%, so the parameters are already well documented (role even carries its full enum-like list). The description only echoes the filter axes already described per-parameter and adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (searches) and resource (the user's sample folders) plus the filter axes (name, role, tempo, key), so the operation is unambiguous. It is clear enough to separate from generic listers like sample_folders and list_sounds, but it never names or scopes out the closest sibling (analyze_sample), which also analyses audio, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 only implied: the phrasing 'searches the user's sample folders' tells the agent this is for locating samples by attribute, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over analyze_sample or sample_folders, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The '(by default)' clause hints at the listen flag's effect but is not framed as guidance.

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