Analyze Loudness

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that it is analysis-only using an EBU R128 filter, does not normalize audio, and does not mutate Premiere. It still does not address readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false, leaving a small residual question about whether any files are written.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the measurement scope front-loaded and the analysis-only constraint appended. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, and the description correctly focuses on scope and the non-mutating guarantee. It could go further by naming the normalization sibling it is meant to precede, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all five parameters (media_path, target_lufs, tolerance_lu, project_item_id, max_true_peak_dbfs) are already documented. The description mentions the measured metrics but adds no format or interpretation guidance for the target/tolerance/peak parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Measure) and concrete outputs (integrated loudness LUFS, loudness range LU, true peak dBFS) plus the source (local media file). The mention of FFmpeg's EBU R128 filter further distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize_loudness_file or validate_delivery_conformance.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as analysis-only and rules out normalization and Premiere changes, which steers the agent away from the wrong sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative (normalize_loudness_file) or the conditions under which a user would need analysis versus normalization.

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