Audio Dsp Analyze

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds behavioral context about artifact reuse ('Reusing an exact job_id reads its attested artifacts without launching again') and limitations ('Standards and semantic claims are unverified,' explicit mono derivation for Ferrous, 30-second/8MiB limits). This is useful supplemental behavior, but much of it is scattered and some claims are vague. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, a 3 reflects the added value without over-crediting.

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 a dense, multi-clause paragraph with obscure terminology ('operator-pinned native DSP workflow,' 'attested artifacts,' 'finite silence/abstentions,' 'Juzzy modes'). It is not front-loaded with a simple statement of purpose, and several sentences feel like internal notes patched together rather than a crafted tool definition, making it hard for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

An output schema and 100% schema description coverage exist, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, because this is a complex tool with many modes and a nested request object, the description should more clearly explain mode selection, job_id reuse semantics, and the difference from sibling audio tools. As written it gestures at these topics without giving a complete picture, so it is just adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters like file_path, expected_source_sha256, operation enum, start/end_seconds, reference, and native_return_format. The description adds only indirect meaning: it clarifies that A/B uses reference-minus-primary, that Juzzy modes preserve certain observations, and that Ferrous receives an explicit mono derivation. These are behavioral notes rather than parameter syntax, and the operation enum contents are not explained in the description, so the baseline 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 first sentence states the tool 'measures audio or invokes one separately installed operator-pinned native DSP workflow,' which gives a verb and resource, but 'one separately installed operator-pinned native DSP workflow' is obscure jargon that doesn't tell an agent concretely what happens. The body discusses outputs and modes rather than clarifying the core operation, and it doesn't distinguish itself clearly from siblings like media_analyze_music or audio_transcribe.

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 never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as media_analyze_music, audio_transcribe, or media_perceive. It mentions 'Use job_status for durable status,' which is a follow-up routing hint, but there is no guidance on when-not-to-use or what conditions select this tool versus its many siblings.

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