audio_find_recent_bounces

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by specifying the exact folders searched and the recency ordering, which informs the agent of scope. It does not discuss return format, but the presence of an output schema covers that.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. Every word earns its place with zero waste, listing all three target folders in one compact clause.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only listing tool with a full output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about what happens when no files exist or how the three folders' results are combined, but these are edge cases an agent can handle from the schema and output schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the limit parameter including its default (20) and bounds (1-200). The description adds minimal semantic value by referencing 'newest first' ordering, but this is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), resource ('newest audio files'), and explicitly names the three folders searched (Rendered, Audio, Projects). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling audio tools like audio_compare_files, audio_analyze_file, and audio_estimate_tempo_and_key, which 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?

The description conveys when to use the tool (when you need recent audio exports/bounces) through its clear scope, but it does not state explicit exclusions or when not to use it relative to siblings. There are no competing 'list audio' siblings, so no routing guidance is strictly necessary, though a brief note on what it is not would improve it.

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