understand_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions supported formats and size limits, and implies an external API call. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., data sent to external service), authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. It covers basic behavioral traits but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 structured with a warning, usage, args, returns, and additional info. It is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with critical information (self-call warning). Minor redundancy exists (e.g., listing audio formats both in args and later), but overall each sentence contributes to clarity.

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 7 parameters (1 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameters, supported formats (MP3, WAV, etc.), and size limits. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand input, output, and constraints. No gaps are evident for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for each parameter: prompt includes examples ('转录音频内容'), audio_url/audio_path clarify single vs multiple, max_tokens gives default/max, and system_prompt describes customization. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and titles.

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 calls a multimodal model to 'understand audio' (transcription, summary, analysis). It distinguishes from siblings by default (audio vs image/video), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from understand_image or understand_video. A 4 is appropriate for clear purpose but minor lack of sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (transcription, summary, analysis) and when-not-to-use (reading source code/metadata). However, it does not mention alternative tools for image or video tasks, which would improve selection. The warning about self-calling if the model is mimo-v2.5 is unique but not a general usage guideline.

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