audio_spectrum

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the analyses performed (read-only operations like analyzing distribution, zero-crossing, RMS) but does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth needs, or side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Description is a single sentence with a list of analyses, front-loading the purpose. No redundancy, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage note).

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 no output schema, description should explain return values or output format. It does not. Also lacks usage context among many audio sibling tools. Incomplete for an analyst to know what to expect.

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?

Only parameter file_path, which has schema description 'Path to WAV file'. Tool description adds context about analysis but no additional parameter-specific semantics. With 100% 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?

Description clearly states the tool performs basic spectral analysis on WAV audio, listing specific analyses: sample value distribution, zero-crossing rate, RMS energy, and anomalous quiet sections. This distinguishes it from siblings like audio_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?

Description implies use for spectral analysis of WAV files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., audio_detect, audio_lsb_detect). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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