import_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses some behaviors: it scans for specific audio formats, creates bins if they don't exist, and supports recursive scanning. However, it omits details on error handling, duplicate handling, or any destructive potential.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence overview, a list of supported formats, and a clear bullet-pointed explanation of each argument. Every part is essential with no 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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and supported formats. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. Minor omission: no mention of handling file conflicts or errors, but this does not significantly reduce completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and behavior: directory (path), bin_name (created if not exist), recursive (scans subdirectories). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 imports audio files from a directory into a media pool bin, lists supported formats, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_media and import_media_to_bin by specifically targeting audio files.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_media or import_media_to_bin, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and supported formats.

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