siren_test_sound

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about physical sound, notes that confirm must be true to execute, and mentions the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED gate. It does not describe the exact side effects beyond sound, but it covers the most important safety-relevant behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose and warning first, then parameter bullets. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and four parameters, the description covers the essential context: physical side effect, host/siren_id sourcing, confirmation gating, and volume limits. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like siren_play, but the output schema covers return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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, and it does. It explains the host format, marks siren_id as required with a source, explains confirm must be true, and gives volume a range plus a fallback default. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Test a siren's sound' with the exact endpoint. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like siren_play or speaker_test_sound.

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 strong operational guidance: where to obtain siren_id, the host format, the confirm requirement, and the volume range. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siren_play or speaker_test_sound, but the context for correct invocation is clear.

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