raw_export_audio

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

The description discloses potential side effects: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, it is vague about the exact nature of these side effects and does not specify what changes occur or what the dialog entails. It also does not describe the output or return value, though no output schema is provided.

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 extremely concise, fitting into one sentence plus a short clause. It efficiently conveys the purpose, nature, and a caution without any unnecessary filler. The structure is logical: purpose, type, side-effect warning, and guidance.

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 covers essential aspects: purpose, that it is static with no arguments, potential side effects (dialog/state change), and a caution to verify the command name. It lacks explicit details about when to use it relative to other export commands, but for a simple utility command with no parameters, it provides enough context for an agent to understand its role and risks.

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 is empty, so all parameters (none) are covered. The description redundantly states it is 'no-argument,' which aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning beyond confirming the absence of parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Export audio files in various formats.' It also clarifies it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' removing ambiguity about the command's nature. This distinguishes it from other export-related tools by specifying that it is a static, argument-free action.

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 provides some usage context by noting it is a static, no-argument action and mentions it 'may open a dialog or change project state,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_export_audio. The advice to 'inspect the command name first' hints at caution but does not provide clear selection criteria.

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