sound_selection_inventory

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

Annotations already provide the core safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, no destructive hint). The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: Atlas-only products remain recommendations rather than being treated as loaded. This is extra context beyond the annotations, but it is fairly narrow and does not disclose other meaningful behavior such as pagination effects or how the request influences the pool.

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 two terse clauses with no wasted words. The first clause states the action and object, and the second provides an important boundary condition. It earns its place and is front-loaded, though it is sparse.

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?

Although the schema, annotations, and output schema carry a lot of information, the description alone does not situate this tool among its sound_selection_* siblings. An agent can see it reads a loaded pool but has no explicit reason to choose it over sound_selection_plan or sound_selection_apply, nor does it state how its output should influence next steps. For a complex tool with a family of operations, this leaves a noticeable completeness gap.

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?

All top-level parameters have fully descriptive schema entries, so the parameter semantics are already well-covered. The description does not need to repeat them, and it adds a small contextual layer by hinting that the operation returns a "compact" pool (tying into preset_limit/preset_start). This matches the baseline expectation when schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb and resource: "Read a compact loaded sound pool." It gives a specific action and object, and the Atlas-only caveat adds further scoping. It does not explicitly name its sibling tools, so an agent has to infer how it differs from sound_selection_get or sound_selection_plan.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to invoke it (e.g., before sound_selection_plan) or when not to use it. The only implication is that you use it to read the loaded sound pool, which is a faint and unsupported hint of context.

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