sound_ls

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions that unresolved records come back as `sounds_error` alongside stored records, and details the fields carried (position, hit_count, skipped, thinned). This goes beyond the safety annotations and helps the agent understand error handling.

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 short paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details the output fields and error handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what records are returned, what fields they contain, and how errors are represented. It doesn't mention sorting or pagination, but those are likely covered by the output schema. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 `path` parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and defaults. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, but per rubric the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 it lists every sound record with hit counts, distinguishing it from sound_add, sound_rm, etc. It names the resource (sound records) and the action (listing with metrics). However, it could be more explicit about the 'list' verb, though 'every sound record' implies enumeration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sound_add, sound_rm, or sound_generate, nor does it state conditions for selection. The description implies it's the listing counterpart, but an agent would need to infer that from context.

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