get_audio_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe behavior for invalid paths, empty results, or whether the listing is recursive. The information given is adequate for a simple read but lacks deeper transparency.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and output fields.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the essential operation and fields returned. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., array of objects) or error behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema to clarify this.

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 0%, and the description only loosely ties 'node' to the node_path parameter. It does not explain the expected path format (e.g., absolute vs relative, from scene root). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource: audio stream players under a node in the edited scene. It also lists the returned attributes (stream, bus, volume), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling audio tools like add_audio_player or set_audio_bus.

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 description clearly implies a read-only inspection use case within the edited scene. It states the scope ('under a node'), giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'to modify audio, use set_audio_bus', so it falls short of a 5.

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