analyze_sample_data_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly states that this writes sample data to an external file and limits the sample count, but it leaves overwrite semantics, how the format is selected, and response/error behavior implicit.

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 summary line is front-loaded with the action and target, and the two Args lines earn their place by defining both parameters compactly. No 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?

For a two-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but without annotations or an output schema, the missing details about file overwriting, format selection by extension, and return value leave an agent making assumptions. The selected-audio precondition is stated, which helps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds essential meaning: path is an absolute output path and limit is the maximum sample count with a default of 100. It does not specify that the target format is likely inferred from the file extension, which is the only notable gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('raw sample data from the selected audio'), and explicit output formats ('TXT, CSV, or HTML'). This clearly separates it from sibling audio-export tools like raw_export_audio and project_export_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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: when sample-level numeric/text data is needed rather than an audio file. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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