wavetable-tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that it is 'pure calculation' and performs no rendering or data saving, which reinforces the safety profile with some context. It does not cover rate limits, authentication, or failure modes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the calculation outputs and followed by a scope clarification. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and the description states the calculation scope and non-rendering nature. Complete for an idempotent pure calculation 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 100%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('packed float32 mono WAV sample count, payload bytes, total bytes, and durations'). It distinguishes itself from audio rendering and saved data, but does not name or differentiate from its sibling tools (describe_wav_encoding, list_export_targets).

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 'Pure calculation; no audio rendering or saved data' implies when this tool is appropriate and excludes rendering/saving tasks. However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit conditions for choosing it over siblings. Usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the nuance that these are 'actual' encoder values (not theoretical defaults) and lists the returned fields, but the field list largely duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded and the format constraint and returned fields trailing in order of importance. Nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with a published output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers what is being read and for which formats. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but its enum already constrains it to float32/pcm16. The description restates those two accepted values, which compensates for the missing prose, yet adds no new meaning (no format defaults, output differences, or validation notes).

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource ('Hyperwave's actual WAV encoder layout') scoped to two formats, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like calculate_frame_size or list_export_targets, which caps it below 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'actual ... encoder layout' suggests inspecting real encoder output rather than computing it, which quietly separates it from calculate_frame_size. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it stays at minimum viable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is well covered by structured data. The description adds real value by disclosing that results include steps, caveats, and primary sources, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters existing. 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 tight sentences with the content scope first and the filtering mechanism second; nothing is wasted. Slightly penalized only because the front-loaded scope contains the import/export ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary and correctly omitted. However, for a 4-parameter paginated list tool, the description never accounts for limit/cursor and carries the naming inconsistency, so it is not fully complete.

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 all four parameters rest on the description. It mentions 'exact slug' (usefully signaling exact-match semantics) and 'category', covering only two of the four parameters. The pagination pair, limit and cursor, is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a real gap.

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 read verb and enumerates the resource contents (formats, steps, caveats, sources), but it calls these 'synthesizer import formats' while the tool name is 'list_export_targets'. That import/export mismatch creates ambiguity about what is actually being listed. The resource is broadly identifiable, but the internal inconsistency keeps it from being a clean 4-5.

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 implies usage through 'Filter by exact slug or category', telling the agent how to narrow results. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition relative to the sibling tools. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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