audio_echo_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the analysis method (autocorrelation), the delay range examined, and the interpretation of results. It does not mention side effects or output format, but the read-only nature is implied. A score of 4 reflects good transparency for a simple 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information about the tool's function and method.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, method, and interpretation. It does not explicitly state the output format, but the mention of 'indicate' implies a detection result. Given no annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (file_path) which is well-documented as 'Path to WAV file'. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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's purpose: detecting echo hiding in audio files via autocorrelation analysis. It specifies the method (normalized autocorrelation at common echo delays 50-1000 samples) and the indicator (unusually regular echo patterns). This distinguishes it from other audio steganography detection siblings like audio_lsb_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 the tool is for echo hiding detection but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternative audio stego detection tools (e.g., audio_lsb_detect). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, which is a gap given the many sibling tools.

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