read_audio_player

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List AudioStreamPlayer nodes' without mentioning read-only nature, what nodes are included, return format, or any side effects. This adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide more context. It fails to explain what 'nodes' means (e.g., current scene or all project scenes), what the returned list contains, or default behavior without the filter. The description is too minimal for full completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter scene_path, with a description 'Filter to scene'. The tool description adds no parameter details, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'List AudioStreamPlayer nodes' clearly specifies a verb (List) and a resource (AudioStreamPlayer nodes), making its primary function obvious. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., current scene vs. project), which would fully distinguish it from similar tools like read_audio_listener or list_audio_files.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions; the only hint is the optional scene_path filter, but it doesn't explain when to use it.

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