audio_waveform

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it largely stops at the output type ('waveform image'). It says nothing about whether this is a read-only render, what resolution or duration of audio is covered by default, whether asset_id and render_path are mutually exclusive, or what happens if neither is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail scored above.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the text alone how to choose between the two source parameters or what the default time window is.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. The phrase 'an asset's or a rendered file's audio' only indirectly hints that asset_id and render_path are two alternative sources; start and end, which clearly bound the analyzed time range, get no mention at all.

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 names a concrete output (a waveform image) and the resource it derives from (an asset's or a rendered file's audio), which is more specific than the bare name. It also gestures at the diagnostic purpose (speech, pauses, peaks), helping separate it from audio_loudness and detect_silence, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'To spot speech, pauses and peaks' implies the analysis scenario in which this tool fits, so usage is inferable. However, with siblings like detect_silence, audio_loudness, and transcribe in the same space, no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given.

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