audio_inspect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Inspect ... to detect" reasonably implies a non-mutating read, and the enumerated formats tell the agent what inputs are accepted. However, it never explicitly states that the file is not modified, what happens on an unrecognized or malformed container, or whether detection can partially fail (e.g., compression identified but rate unknown).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the format list and extraction targets packed in without filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is restated from the schema.

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 inspection tool this is close to sufficient: supported formats and the reported properties (sample rate, channels, compression) are stated, which effectively describes the result in the absence of an output schema. The remaining gap is behavior on failure or unsupported containers, which matters because there is no annotation coverage at all.

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?

There is a single required parameter (path) with 100% schema description coverage ("Path to audio file in workspace"), so the schema already does the documentation work. The description adds no meaning about the path beyond the schema — nothing about workspace-relative versus absolute paths, or extension expectations for the three format families. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Inspect") with a specific resource ("audio asset file") and enumerates the supported container formats (PS2 VAG, N64 bank, raw ADPCM) plus the attributes it extracts (sample rate, channels, compression). An agent can tell this is a metadata probe rather than a decoder. It stops short of naming the decode siblings (audio_decode_file, audio_decode_vag_block), so the inspect-vs-decode boundary is only inferable from the verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives. The adjacent tools audio_decode_file and audio_decode_vag_block are obvious candidates for the same input, and nothing here says whether to inspect first, whether inspection is a prerequisite for decoding, or what to do with an unrecognized format. The purpose implies a use case, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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