list_settings_notifications_pushover_sounds

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, but does not disclose the token's role, authentication requirements, or response format. With annotations handling the safety aspects, this is a bare-adequate score.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint and args sections are minimal, but the args line repeats schema information without value. Despite that, it is not bloated and maintains clarity, so it earns a 4.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described. However, the description lacks token semantics and usage context, which are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. For a simple one-parameter GET endpoint, it is minimally sufficient but leaves important 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'token: Query parameter,' which is already obvious from the schema. It does not explain what the token is (e.g., API key, auth token), whether it is required for this endpoint, or how to obtain it. An agent would have no idea what value to supply.

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 'Get Pushover sounds' states a specific verb and resource, and the included endpoint 'GET /api/v1/settings/notifications/pushover/sounds' reinforces this. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_settings_notifications_pushover, which would likely cover broader notification settings, not the sounds list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be used to populate a sound selection field in Pushover configuration, nor does it exclude any contexts. It merely states the action without any usage context.

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