analysis_file

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

Adds important behavior beyond the annotations: only the first 10 minutes are read, and the call is asynchronous, returning a job that must be resolved with jobs.wait. The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the remaining gap is minor.

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?

Two dense sentences with no waste. Core purpose and file formats come first, followed by usage routing, then the key behavioral constraints (10-minute limit, async job). Everything is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, formats, sibling routing, truncation, and the async job pattern. It doesn't describe the job result contents, but that is reasonably delegated to jobs.wait.

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 single parameter has full schema coverage, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaningful constraint by listing accepted file formats (WAV, FLAC, MP3, OGG, AIFF). This helps the agent validate the path argument beyond the schema's 'Absolute path' text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyse an audio file') plus supported formats, and distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the related workflows (analysis.compare for reference tracks, master.check for exported masters). An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the two intended use cases clearly: reference track comparison via analysis.compare, or master verification via master.check. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough to route the agent correctly.

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