Extract audio features

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: potential macOS permission prompt for live device, creation of a self-contained container at a specified parent path, and the structure of the output channels. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by differentiation and usage details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output (reactive channels on a Null CHOP with examples). It covers key usage scenarios and constraints, though it could briefly mention exact channel names or how to access them beyond the example.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal extra context (e.g., Sensitivity knob scaling all channels, oscillator for testing), but does not significantly extend what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Build an audio-analysis chain') and resource ('Null CHOP'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'create_audio_reactive' by contrasting raw signals vs spectrum visual. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: to obtain raw audio signals for driving parameters, and explicitly mentions an alternative ('create_audio_reactive') for when a visual is desired. It also covers source types and potential permissions, equipping the agent to decide correctly.

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