analyze_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the analysis outputs and implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, which is appropriate for a signal analysis tool.

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 concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Run signal analysis'), and efficiently enumerates outputs without extraneous content.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return values, providing enough context for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

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% for the single parameter (capture_id), which already has a description. The tool description adds that the parameter should come from capture_audio, but this is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly specifies the verb ('Run signal analysis'), resource ('captured audio clip'), and lists specific metrics returned (RMS, peak dB, clipping, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_audio or describe_audio.

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 implies the tool requires a prior captured audio clip (via capture_id), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like describe_audio or diff_audio, leaving room for ambiguity.

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