audio_assets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'capped' discloses a behavioral detail—results are limited—but does not explain the cap's magnitude or what happens when exceeded. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but thin.

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 that conveys the action and a key qualifier in only eight words. There is no unnecessary information, making it a model of conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and trivial state, the description covers the essential contract: it lists imported audio assets with a cap. No additional context (e.g., return format) is required for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('imported audio assets in the project'), and adds the qualifier '(capped)' to clarify scope. It is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'audio_import' or 'sound_info' by focusing on listing assets.

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 implies usage (use this to list audio assets) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or conditional recommendations are given, so it stops at an implied usage level.

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