qa

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavior disclosed is 'Failed analysis is an error, not a pass', which is useful but does not cover return format, side effects, permissions, or failure modes beyond pass/error. The description remains highly opaque for an 11-parameter tool.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action and measurement targets are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 11 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the result looks like, how pass/fail is determined, what 'input' refers to, or how tolerances interplay with the expected values. An agent cannot call this tool with confidence.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter meanings. It maps high-level concepts (duration, black intervals, silence, LUFS, resolution, FPS) to some parameters, but leaves many parameters like 'input', 'lufsTolerance', 'durationTolerance', and 'silenceMinDuration' unexplained. It provides only a loose category mapping, not real semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Measure') with a clear list of resources: duration, black intervals, silence, integrated LUFS, resolution, and FPS. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'probe', which may also inspect media properties.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'probe' or 'render'. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or which sibling to prefer under which conditions.

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