list_sound_effect_packs

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

Discloses the Phase 1 limitation and that the endpoint shape is finalized. No annotations exist, so description carries burden. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, although implied. The limitation is a key behavioral trait.

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?

Two paragraphs: first states purpose, second explains limitation. Front-loaded and efficient. Could be slightly more concise but overall appropriate length.

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?

No output schema, so description should cover return value. It mentions ok=false in limitation but does not describe the structure of the list (e.g., array of pack names). Examples given but not formal structure. Adequate but leaves 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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining what is listed (built-in packs) and the context (hook stages). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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?

Clearly states it lists sound-effect packs known to the EffectsEngine and gives examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sound tools (e.g., get_sound_effect_state, set_sound_hook) which are related but have different purposes.

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?

Implies use before assigning sounds with hooks and mentions a Phase 1 limitation ('returns ok=false'), providing some context. But lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, and the limitation is more about implementation status than usage guidance.

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