List Bfxr parameters and presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the tool's behavior by enumerating the exact informational content returned: every parameter with range, default, description, plus presets and waveforms. While it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only', listing is inherently non-mutating and the tool has no parameters, so this is adequately transparent for a reference tool.

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 long and perfectly front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool provides, and the second gives a clear instruction on when to use it. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what is returned (parameter metadata, presets, waveforms) and when to use it, and the sibling tools are all action-oriented, so this reference tool is well-contextualized within the set.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by mentioning `params` as the hand-crafting mechanism in sibling tools, but it doesn't need to describe any input schema since none exists. This is appropriate for a parameterless reference tool.

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'), names the resource ('Bfxr parameters and presets'), and explicitly details what is returned (range, default, meaning, presets, waveforms). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_sound or generate_sound, which perform actions rather than provide reference data.

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 gives an explicit trigger scenario: 'Read this before hand-crafting a sound with `params`.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative reference tools. Still, for a simple listing tool, this provides sufficient context.

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