agent_verify_wav

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, but the description adds useful behavioral detail: it reads actual output PCM, rejects peak levels below the silence floor as silent or dither-only, and mentions the default threshold of -80 dBFS. It still does not explain how pass/fail results are returned, but the key rejection criterion is disclosed.

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 dense but front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the key failure condition are both stated immediately.

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 has no output schema, five parameters with zero schema descriptions, and only one required parameter. The description covers the main checks and failure condition, but it does not explain the return format, tolerance behavior for expected_seconds, or how optional parameters affect verification.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains silence_floor_dbfs and its default, and implicitly maps duration/rate/channels to expected_seconds, sample_rate, and channels, but it leaves path semantics and the effect of omitting optional parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verification action on WAV output: reading PCM and checking duration, rate, channels, and non-silence. This is clearer than a generic tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as analysis_file, agent_measure, or master_check.

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 states what the tool checks but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or named sibling tools, so an agent must infer that it is for post-render audio verification.

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