list_audio_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: return format with specific fields, plus the non-obvious behavior that labels are hidden until mic permission is granted at least once, and that a hint is returned in that case.

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 three sentences covering purpose, return data, and a usage tip. The parenthetical explanation of hidden labels is necessary but slightly lengthy; overall efficient and well-structured.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains purpose, return structure, a behavioral quirk, and a related action. Minor gaps include no mention of error cases or permissions beyond the label hint.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter info but explains the return data and behavioral context, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states the tool enumerates audio input devices (microphones) available to Windy Word, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like detect_hardware by focusing solely on microphones and providing return fields.

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 when to use this tool (to see available microphones) and offers an explicit alternative for switching devices via set_setting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or other alternatives.

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