audio_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs multiple analyses (LSB chi-square, entropy analysis, metadata inspection, appended data check), which is good transparency. However, it does not describe the output format or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that clearly states the purpose and methods. There is no wasted text, and it front-loads the main action. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has one simple parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but missing details on return values or how results are presented. For a detection tool, the agent would benefit from knowing the output format.

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 schema has one parameter 'file_path' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'WAV file' but the schema's description already specifies 'Path to audio file (WAV)'. 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 verb 'auto-detect' and the resource 'audio steganography in a WAV file'. It lists specific analysis methods (LSB chi-square, entropy analysis, metadata inspection, appended data check), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio_lsb_detect or audio_echo_detect.

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 usage for detecting audio steganography but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_lsb_detect or audio_echo_detect. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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