get-audio-info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It correctly implies a read operation without side effects, but lacks details on error handling, permission requirements, or response format. This is adequate but not thorough.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output. It is concise and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more structured by listing items.

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 adequately lists the types of data returned (metadata, file path, markers, keyframes). For a simple read tool with three well-documented parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

The schema already has full coverage (100%) with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., '1-based composition index'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage nuances for the parameters.

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 action 'Get' and specifies the resource: audio metadata, source file path, markers, and audio level keyframes for an After Effects layer. It distinguishes from siblings that focus on effects or markers by listing specific audio-related items.

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 like 'analyze-audio-waveform' or 'set-audio-levels'. It does not mention context or prerequisites.

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