get_noise_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the selected region becomes the noise profile, that the profile is consumed by noise_reduction, and that applying reduction is a separate subsequent call. It stops short of stating explicitly whether the audio selection is modified, but 'capture' plus the two-step explanation make the non-destructive intent reasonably clear.

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 leads with the main purpose, adds an important precondition in caps, and then gives the workflow. It is slightly longer than necessary because the 'How it works' sentence partly repeats the capture/apply distinction, but each section contributes useful information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what to select, what the tool produces, and how it connects to noise_reduction. It does not describe failure behavior or whether the profile persists globally, but these are secondary for a simple capture action.

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 tool has zero formal parameters, so the parameter-semantics burden is minimal. The description still adds relevant operational context by telling the agent to pre-select a pure-noise region, which effectively constitutes the tool's input even though it is not a schema parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('noise profile') with a clear scope ('currently selected audio region'), and differentiates from the sibling noise_reduction by stating the profile is used by that tool. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs the required precondition (select 0.5-2 seconds of pure noise) and explains the two-step relationship with noise_reduction: first capture a profile, then apply reduction. It does not spell out 'use noise_reduction instead' as an exclusion, but the workflow is clear enough for correct routing.

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