get_sound_candidates

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

The annotations already convey read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the result contains exactly four real playable candidates, and the agent should present them as a numbered list and wait for the user's reply. This is meaningful behavioral guidance without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then gives the key interaction instruction. No words are wasted, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately 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 description covers the main purpose and the return content (four candidates), and annotations handle safety semantics. However, it omits the meaning of wait_seconds, possible error conditions, and what to do if no candidates exist or the generation is invalid. These gaps are noticeable but not critical for a simple retrieval tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameters. It indirectly implies generation_job_id through 'a started generation,' but it never explains wait_seconds, which has a default, minimum, and maximum but no stated purpose in the description. This leaves a meaningful parameter unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve four real playable candidates') on a specific resource ('a started generation'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools: it does not generate, select, install, or fetch audio capabilities, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a started generation' clearly places this tool after generation has begun and before a candidate is chosen. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer 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.