get_audio_from_sample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns audio/* bytes and that output_path saves them, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether it needs authorization, rate limits, or what happens if the sample doesn't exist. With annotations covering safety, the description should add more context, but it falls short.

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 concise: one sentence that covers the return type and the output_path option. It's front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be structured better with a clear separation between what it does and how to use output_path.

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 tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and annotations that cover safety. The description mentions the return format and output_path, but doesn't explain the relationship between voice_id and sample_id, nor does it provide any guidance on error conditions or authentication. Given the complexity of the domain and the many siblings, more context would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description mentions output_path and implies inline base64 when omitted, which slightly reinforces but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource: 'Get Audio From Sample Returns audio/* bytes'. It's clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_pvc_sample_audio or get_speaker_audio, which might also return audio from samples. The name itself is somewhat awkward, but the description clarifies the return type.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to audio retrieval (e.g., get_pvc_sample_audio, get_speaker_audio), an agent needs to know the specific context. The description only mentions output_path behavior, not usage scenarios.

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