list_sounds

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no result limits, pagination, ordering, or return shape — and 'Browses' merely echoes the annotation rather than extending it.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is a narrow usage hint rather than a full usage block, which keeps it tight but slightly under-specified.

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 read-only browsing tool with no output schema, the description never sketches what a result contains or how it relates to the adjacent save_sound/load_sound/update_sound/delete_sound family. It is adequate to invoke but leaves the agent guessing about output and family boundaries.

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 75%, near the high baseline, so the schema largely documents tag/plugin/search; the undescribed 'kind' enum is self-evident. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it neither helps nor compensates.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Browses the user's sound library,' which an agent can distinguish from mutation siblings like save_sound/delete_sound. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so the differentiation is only 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?

'Check here before designing a sound from scratch' supplies a concrete trigger for reaching for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., find_samples for raw samples) or any when-not condition, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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