analyze_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description compensates by disclosing credit costs (1 or 2), auto-refund on failure, and file size constraints. It stops short of describing the response format or whether it creates job records, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for basic agentic decisions.

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?

Three tight sentences: first states action and output, second covers cost/failure, third gives usage routing. No repetitive or extraneous information; every 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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, constraints, costs, and relationships to sibling tools. It even addresses the common ambiguity of whether the agent has a file path vs. a name, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial context for file_path (needs real path, not a name) and reiterates the cost difference for model, even though the schema also says this. This extra guidance improves parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('LOCAL audio file'), lists supported formats and size limit, and states concrete outputs (BPM, key, genres, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling analyze_url by explicitly noting it is for local files.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context: 'if you only know the track's name... call find_audio_files first' and 'For files over 15 MB or already-hosted audio, use analyze_url.' This directly guides tool selection against siblings.

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