suno_get_wav

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions conversion to WAV and file size/quality trade-off, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., song must be generated), whether the tool is asynchronous, or authentication requirements.

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?

Description is concise with a few sentences and bullet points. Every sentence adds value: main purpose, quality comparison, use cases, and return type. No 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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains return type and provides usage context. Could mention that the task might be asynchronous or require prior generation, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'song ID' and 'webhook callback' which are already described in the schema.

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?

Description starts with 'Get the lossless WAV format of a generated song', specifying verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like suno_get_midi and suno_get_mp4 by focusing on WAV format.

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?

Includes a 'Use this when:' list with three bullet points (lossless, highest quality, production processing), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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