understand_audio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds useful info like supported formats and size limits, but lacks details on idempotence, authorization, or rate limits. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only or has 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?

Well-structured with clear sections: intent, when/not, args, returns, formats, limits. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Covers all parameters, use cases, and constraints (format, size). Output schema exists, so return explanation is sufficient. Could mention asynchronous behavior or latency, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples for prompt and default for max_tokens. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema names.

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 invokes the MIMO multimodal model for audio understanding, with explicit use cases (transcribe, summarize, analyze). It distinguishes from siblings (understand_image, understand_video) by specifying audio.

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?

Explicit 'when to use' and 'do not use for' sections provide clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools for the excluded use case (reading source code/metadata), though siblings are image/video tools.

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