sound_info

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields (guid, name, path, hasAudioFile/audioFileName) and an important behavioral nuance: the check is not for the audio file's existence but for whether a SingleSound has an audio asset attached. It doesn't mention if the tool performs any side effects—but it's presumably read-only. It doesn't specify error conditions or performance. Given the lack of annotations, it provides some behavioral context but is not exhaustive; a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds context beyond a minimal statement.

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 sentences: the first explains the primary purpose and return fields, the second explains a use case and provides an example of when to check. It is concise and front-loaded with the core function. The parameter description follows as an 'Args:' section. There is no fluff. The only minor deduction is that the first sentence is a bit long with a dash and parenthetical, but still clear.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return fields, the significance of hasAudioFile, and a practical scenario for using the tool. It doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the instrument was not found), but for a read-only lookup, this might not be critical. Given the complexity is low, the description is quite complete. The only gap is lack of error handling info, but that's not unusual for such tools. Overall, it exceeds the minimum viable.

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 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameter fully. It does: 'target: Instrument {guid} or path.' This clarifies that the single required parameter accepts either an instrument guid or a path, which is not self-evident from the schema (which just says 'string'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property name 'target'. No other parameters exist, so the description compensates adequately. A score of 4 is justified because it provides syntax and acceptable values.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieve an instrument's guid, name, path, and hasAudioFile status. The verb-phrase 'Get an instrument's...' is specific and identifies the resource (instrument/SingleSound). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'sound_set_audio_file' (which sets the file) and 'sound_info' logically complements that. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from a potential sibling like 'utility_info' or 'sound_get'—there is no such sibling, but several 'info' tools exist (e.g., 'event_info', 'mixer_group_info', 'bank_info') which share a naming pattern but are for different resource types; the description implies the resource type is Instrument/SingleSound, which differentiates it.

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 provides clear usage context: it recommends checking after 'sound_set_audio_file' to verify the assignment stuck, which is a specific scenario. It also mentions the implication of no audio asset (empty box, silence), which helps when deciding to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools if the user just wants the guid/name (they could use utility_lookup or similar). It relies on the reader to infer that for audio-independent info, other tools might suffice.

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