get_audio_component_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the response contract, notably audio_component_found and audio_component_message, which signals that a missing component is a normal, non-error outcome. That is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence followed by the return shape. The return enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists and it is the only source of return documentation.

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?

With no output schema, the listed return fields make the tool callable and interpretable, including the found/message failure signal. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the component must exist in the current level or PIE session), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter (audio_component_name) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies that the name identifies the component to query, adding nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 per the coverage rule.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves comprehensive properties of an audio component') and enumerates the property families it returns (volume, pitch, transform, sound details). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the generic sibling get_component_properties or from audio-asset getters like get_sound_wave_properties, so the agent must infer that this targets a live component instance.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'of an audio component'; there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With a large sibling set containing get_component_properties and get_sound_wave_properties, an explicit routing sentence would have been valuable.

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