suno_get_wav

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (WAV audio info, Task ID) and notes that WAV files are larger but lossless. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, use cases, and returns. However, it is somewhat verbose; the use case section could be more concise, and the return description partly duplicates the purpose section.

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 no annotations and an output schema exists, the description provides basic functional information. However, it omits details on how to use the callback_url parameter, whether the task is long-running, and typical response formats, leaving gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (audio_id, callback_url) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the tool gets a WAV format for a song, which is already implied by 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a lossless WAV format of a generated song. The verb 'get' and resource 'WAV format' are specific, and the context of sibling tools like suno_get_midi and suno_get_mp4 implicitly differentiates this tool.

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 includes a 'Use this when' section listing three scenarios, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., suno_get_mp4 for compressed audio), making guidance incomplete.

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