sound_selection_history_status

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

Annotations already cover non-destructive, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the tool reads a local history location and returns bounded record counts, which signals that output sizes are intentionally capped. No contradiction exists.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('local history path,' 'health,' 'schema,' 'bounded record counts') adds distinct information.

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 no-input inspection tool, the description plus the read-only/idempotent annotations and output schema cover almost everything an agent needs. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of when to choose this over sound_selection_inventory or sound_selection_get.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The tool takes no input, and the description focuses instead on what will be reported, which is the only semantic content relevant here.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and uniquely identifies the local Sound Selection history resource, listing four concrete output facets (path, health, schema, bounded record counts). It clearly distinguishes this status/inspection tool from mutating siblings like sound_selection_history_reset.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Even though the read-only intent is inferable, the text itself leaves the agent to guess that this is a pre-operation inspection versus a debugging/support check.

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