mp3_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists what is reported but does not mention whether the file is read-only, permissions required, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that processes files.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, listing specific outputs without redundancy.

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?

While the description lists key metadata, it lacks details about the output format or what 'file structure overview' includes. Given the complexity of MP3 metadata and absence of output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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% and the description does not add meaning beyond 'file_path: Path to MP3 audio file'. The description focuses on output rather than parameter details, so 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 'Full MP3 metadata extraction' and lists specific metadata types (ID3v1 tag, ID3v2 frames, duration, bitrate, VBR status, sample rate, file structure overview), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mp3_detect or mp3_frame_analysis which focus on detection or frame-level details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related sibling tools (e.g., mp3_id3_hidden, mp3_padding, mp3_structure), the absence of context or exclusions leaves the agent without decision support.

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