get_special_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a simple enumeration of names, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention that it has no side effects or what happens in edge cases (e.g., if no special inputs exist). For a trivial getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a usage tip. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is complete: it lists the exact names returned and explains the intended usage. No output schema exists, but the description itself enumerates the expected return values, making the tool fully understandable.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is given. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 returns the names of built-in special audio inputs, enumerating them as 'Desktop Audio 1/2, Mic/Aux 1-4'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_input_list, which lists broader input sources. The verb 'get' in the tool name combined with 'Names of...' makes the purpose explicit.

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 a clear use case: 'Use these names to control the default audio channels.' It tells the agent when to use the tool (when needing identifiers for built-in audio inputs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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