sound_master_render

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a two-pass process and conditional retention, but omits critical behavior: whether it writes files, what permissions are needed, whether it is destructive or reversible, and what output to expect. This is thin for a mutation/render tool.

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 single sentence is short but cryptically structured, starting with 'Retain' rather than a clear action like 'Render'. It is concise yet not front-loaded with the tool's primary operation, making it harder 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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, a nested request object, and two required parameters, the description is far too sparse. Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain returns), the description does not explain inputs, prerequisites, or side effects.

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% and there are two required parameters ('request' object and 'project_root' string). The description says nothing about what 'request' should contain or what 'project_root' refers to, leaving both completely undocumented in the text.

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 does not state a clear action verb for the tool named 'render'; instead it says 'Retain a two-pass master only after measuring final audio against its policy.' An agent cannot easily tell that this tool renders audio, nor how it differs from siblings like sound_mix_render or sound_qa_loudness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sound_mix_render or sound_qa_loudness. The conditional phrase 'only after measuring...' hints at a prerequisite but does not name tools or situations for selection.

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