sonic_record_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions it may start Sonic Pi, but it does not disclose potential shutdown behavior (e.g., via shutdown_after), overwrite rules, blocking until duration expires, or what happens if the output file already exists. This lack of detail makes the tool's effects unpredictable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core operation in one line. While it omits important behavioral details, this is a conciseness issue rather than a structure problem—the sentence 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?

The tool is complex (10 parameters, no annotations, zero schema coverage), yet the description is minimal. It lacks usage guidance, side effects, and optional parameter semantics, and while an output schema exists, the description alone is not enough for an agent to understand when to use this tool or how to set non-required parameters. The high-level overview is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description maps the three required parameters: 'record a .rb file' implies path, 'for a fixed duration' maps to duration_seconds, and 'save WAV output' maps to output_path. However, it gives no explanation for the seven optional parameters (bit_depth, no_inputs, overwrite, root_path, buffer_name, save_timeout, shutdown_after), and since the schema has zero property descriptions, this is a critical gap.

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 clear sequence: start Sonic Pi if needed, record a .rb file for a fixed duration, and save WAV output. It identifies the resource (.rb file), action (record), and output (WAV), and distinguishes itself from siblings like sonic_start and sonic_play_file which handle individual steps. However, 'record a .rb file' is slightly ambiguous—whether it records the audio playback or the file itself—so it's not perfectly explicit.

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 offers no explicit comparison to alternative tools such as sonic_start_recording, sonic_stop_recording, sonic_save_recording, or sonic_play_file, nor does it mention when a user would prefer those separate controls. The only usage hint is 'Start Sonic Pi if needed,' which implies a prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to choose this combined tool over the individual steps.

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