audio_analyze

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (BPM, key, timings, transcription) and explains polyphonic vs monophonic transcription, including the requirement for the 'polyphonic' extra. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or any potential side effects.

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 a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: supported formats, return values, and transcription options. No wordiness or redundancy.

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 description covers the main features and supported formats but lacks details on the return format (e.g., JSON, dictionary keys). No output schema exists, so the description should clarify how results are structured. Error conditions or performance costs are not mentioned.

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 description explicitly links the 'polyphonic' parameter to its effect and mentions 'optional notes' (likely tied to extract_melody). However, it does not explicitly describe the 'path' parameter or confirm that extract_melody controls transcription. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate more.

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 verb 'Analyze' and specifies the resource as 'audio file', listing concrete analyses: tempo, key, onsets, loudness, optional notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like audio_slice or audio_melody_to_piano_roll.

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 for extracting musical features from audio files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audio_slice, voice_transcribe_file). No when-not or comparison to siblings is provided.

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