Extract audio features

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

The description details the tool's behavior: it produces raw audio features (overall level, bass/mid/treble), includes a Sensitivity knob, and can use various sources. It also warns about macOS permissions for device source. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds significant behavioral context without contradiction.

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 concise (5-6 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, differentiates from a sibling, gives a usage example, and covers behavioral details and source options. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient and clear.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool produces (bass/mid/treble energies, overall level) and how to use it (bind to node parameters). It covers all important aspects: source options, permissions, sensitivity control, and the chain concept. The description is comprehensive for this tool's 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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., Sensitivity knob scaling all channels) but does not go into depth beyond what the schema provides. It explains the overall chain and band energies, which adds marginal value, but most parameter semantics are already covered by 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 it builds an audio-analysis chain exposing reactive channels on a Null CHOP, and distinguishes itself from the sibling create_audio_reactive which renders a spectrum visual. This provides a specific verb (builds) and resource (audio-analysis chain), making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly compares to create_audio_reactive, stating that this tool produces raw signals for driving any parameter, while the sibling renders a spectrum visual. It also explains when to use different sources (device, file, oscillator, existing_chop) and notes potential macOS permission prompts. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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