audio_list_recent_bounces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. The genuinely additive behavioral context is the folder scope of the scan and the instruction to confirm the file with the user; ordering and limits are already in the schema. Moderate value beyond annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Purpose, usage context, and scan scope are covered; only minor detail (e.g., what happens on an empty result or how results are grouped by folder) is absent, which is acceptable for a read-only list tool.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter (default 20, min 1, max 200, newest-first semantics all documented). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('newest audio files') and pins down the exact search space (Rendered, Audio, Projects folders). No sibling tool lists recent renders, so an agent can distinguish it from audio_analyze_file or audio_compare_files without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'find the user's latest export before measuring it with the other audio_* tools,' and adds the operational caveat to confirm the file with the user. It does not name a specific alternative lister or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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