Create audio spectrum

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

The description details behavioral aspects beyond annotations: it creates a Null CHOP with bindable channels, includes a Sensitivity knob, and lists source options with their implications (e.g., permission popup, testing). It does not mention error handling or replacement behavior, but overall covers key behaviors.

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 single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides guidance. While packed with information, it is efficient and avoids redundancy. Could be slightly more scannable, but overall concise.

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 output schema, the description explains the output (Null CHOP with frequency bins) and covers source variants and key controls. It lacks details on error cases or exact output structure, but is sufficient for a creation tool with this complexity.

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 description adds limited new meaning. It reinforces usage context (e.g., '16 or 32 is typical') but largely mirrors schema descriptions. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly deepen understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Build an FFT audio-spectrum analyzer that exposes N separate, ready-to-bind frequency-bin channels (band0..band{N-1}) on a Null CHOP.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_audio_features and create_audio_reactive, making selection unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use extract_audio_features when you want coarse level/bass/mid/treble bands instead of N fine bins, create_audio_reactive for a ready-made spectrum visual, and feed this Null into bind_audio_reactive to drive a COMP.' Also mentions potential macOS permission popup for 'device' source.

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