limiter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended effect and the default ceiling, but omits whether the operation is destructive, whether audio must be selected first, and what happens after processing. For a modifying effect, this leaves important operational behavior undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, a useful industry-standard note, then a tight parameter list. The Args block partially duplicates the schema, but since the schema has no descriptions, this duplication earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify application scope and side effects. It does not state whether the limiter applies to selected audio, a whole track, or the entire project, nor does it mention whether the operation can be undone or what result the agent should expect.

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 Args block meaningfully compensates by documenting all six parameters with units, defaults, and allowed values for limiter_type and makeup_gain. It does not explain the acoustic difference between limiter types or precisely how makeup gain is applied, but it gives enough semantic information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a limiter to prevent audio from exceeding a threshold.' This makes the core function clear and distinct from generic effects, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like compressor or normalize for contrast.

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 instruction 'Use after compression' provides a clear and practical sequencing guideline for when this tool fits in a workflow. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently directive.

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