diff_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'flags what changed,' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose whether it is safe, destructive, or requires permissions. Given the simple nature of a diff tool, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a minor gap.

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 sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and what is flagged, the second gives a concise use case. No unnecessary words. Well-structured and efficient.

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 description covers the purpose and usage but lacks information about return values or potential errors. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, a hint at the output format would improve completeness. Sibling tools are explained in their own descriptions, so differentiation is adequate.

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%, with each parameter described as the 'before' and 'after' capture ID. The tool description adds context about comparing captures and the aspects examined, but does not significantly enhance the semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool compares two audio captures and lists specific aspects (loudness, tone, timing, clipping). It distinguishes itself from siblings (capture_audio, analyze_audio, describe_audio) by focusing on comparative analysis and providing a concrete use case ('before and after a code change').

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'before and after a code change to verify the audio impact.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the use case implies a comparison scenario.

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