Normalize Audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it reads input and writes output, overwrites existing files, or handles errors). This lack of detail leaves uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that includes all essential information without fluff. It is highly efficient and to the point.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the output format beyond the filename, mention prerequisites (e.g., dependencies), or describe error conditions. For a tool that is part of a pipeline, this leaves gaps in understanding.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (inputPath and outputPath), covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's action (normalize) and specific output format (16kHz mono PCM WAV), with a clear reference to Whisper requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transcribe_audio by focusing on preprocessing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage before transcription with Whisper, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer the context from the format requirement.

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