audio_decode

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing potential side effects, failure behavior, or operational constraints. It does not mention whether output files are overwritten or what happens with unsupported formats.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy to parse and fully aligned with the tool's core purpose.

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 lacks output schema and annotations, and the description provides only a minimal action statement. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or any context for usage, making it insufficient for an agent to fully invoke the tool.

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 defines only 'input' and 'output' with no descriptions. The description implies input is the source audio and output is the decoded file, but it does not clarify path conventions, format encoding, or other details, leaving the two required parameters under-specified.

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 a specific verb 'Decode' with a clear resource 'supported game audio' and output targets 'WAV/OGG/MP3', which distinguishes it from sibling audio tools like audio_probe and audio_list_formats that serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent without direction.

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