audio_decode_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 16-bit PCM WAV output and the N64 codebook refusal behavior, but it does not explain write gating, dry-run defaults, overwrite behavior, or what apply=true actually changes.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important N64 caveat follows 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?

It covers the core decoding behavior and the N64 prerequisite well, which is important for correct invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the write/apply behavior and output return semantics less explicit than ideal.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, apply, format, and outPath. The description adds some context by naming the supported formats and the N64 codebook requirement, but it does not deepen parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: decode PS2 VAG/VAGi or N64 AIFC VADPCM files to 16-bit PCM WAV. It clearly distinguishes the supported formats and output type, though it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings such as audio_decode_vag_block or audio_inspect.

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?

Usage is implied by the decode-to-WAV purpose and by the N64 prerequisite requiring the file's own VADPCMCODES codebook. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use guidance, or routing to alternatives like audio_inspect or audio_decode_vag_block.

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