List template sounds

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

Annotations already cover read-only/safe, but the description adds real context: sounds never change the price and the call is free, plus the edit_sounds dependency. These are behavioral facts not derivable from the annotations. Minor gap: no mention of return format or ordering beyond 'by beat'.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the text is dense and packs several distinct concepts (beat semantics, template_sounds override, edit_sounds dependency, pricing) into one block. The closing 'Sounds never change the price. Free.' is redundant, restating the same cost point twice.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately ('where each beat plays, its default and every name it takes'). It also ties the result to the make_ugc parameters that consume it, giving an agent enough to use it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed while clarifying how the returned names feed make_ugc parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (template sounds that make_ugc templates play) with the scope 'by beat'. It is clearly the discovery tool for sound names, distinct from make_ugc/revise_run siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It explains the downstream usage (template_sounds { beat: name } swaps a sound, template_sounds=false plays none) which implies you call this to discover valid names before configuring make_ugc. But it never states when to call this tool versus simply running a template, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

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