audio_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states it 'gets' metadata, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, error behavior, or permissions. The description is sufficient for a simple info tool, but more detail (e.g., 'reads only, does not modify file') would be more transparent.

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 two sentences plus a terse Args block. Every word earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the metadata list is specific, and the parameter description is compact. No redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the return format is presumably structured, and the description lists the expected metadata fields. It covers the source parameter adequately. Missing details like error handling or network requirements for URLs are minor for a metadata tool; overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 Args section explains that 'source' can be a local file path or an HTTP(S) URL, which adds meaning beyond the plain schema type. The schema coverage is 0%, so this explanatory text is crucial; it compensates well and gives the agent the necessary context for the only parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audio file metadata') and enumerates the exact metadata fields (codec, duration, sample rate, channels, bitrate, embedded tags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like audio_convert or audio_trim, which perform transformations.

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 when to use it (when you need metadata about an audio file) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling audio tools, explicit routing would improve clarity, but the intent is inferable from the verb and field list.

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