list-sound-effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a display/list operation, which implies it's read-only and non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or sibling differentiation. For a basic list tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adequately matches the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '利用可能な効果音の一覧を表示します' (Displays a list of available sound effects). It uses a specific verb ('表示します' - displays) and resource ('効果音の一覧' - list of sound effects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'play-sound-effect', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'play-sound-effect'. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only implied usage is to get a list, but no explicit guidance is given.

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