raw_delay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency for a raw command. However, it hedges with 'may' and does not specify what dialog appears or what project state is altered, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 short and information-dense: it states the effect, the argument expectation, and the key risk in a few clauses. The opening label 'Delay:' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the rest is compact and front-loaded.

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-argument tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it gives the purpose, confirms no arguments, and warns of possible side effects. But 'inspect the command name first' is vague and the exact behavioral outcome of applying the delay remains underspecified, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, and the description explicitly confirms 'no-argument.' With zero parameters, no additional parameter semantics are needed, matching the baseline of 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a delay effect.' It also adds that this is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which clarifies the exact kind of invocation. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like effect_echo or effect_reverb, so it does not earn a 5.

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 implies usage by saying it applies a delay effect and takes no arguments, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The warning about opening a dialog or changing project state is more cautionary than a selection rule. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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