sound_qa_loudness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that inputs are optional and that a "labelled demo" is produced when omitted, which is useful, but it never explains what "policy" governs, what loudness thresholds apply, or what the operation is validated against.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with two wholly undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is far too thin to tell an agent how to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (request, project_root) are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions omitting inputs but never explains what the request object or project_root are for, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ("Measure") and a resource ("hashed local audio"), but "against its policy" is opaque jargon that leaves the actual measurement target ambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling QA/audio tools (e.g. sound_qa_asr, sound_master_render, video_audio_waveform), so an agent cannot reliably pick it out of the list.

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 only usage hint is the edge case "omit inputs for a labelled demo," which tells the agent what happens when nothing is supplied. There is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling QA or mixing tools, nor any prerequisites stated.

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