mp3_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only ('displays', 'visualization') with no destructive side effects, but does not disclose potential performance impacts or error handling (e.g., non-MP3 files). Adequate but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that packs all necessary information without redundancy. Every phrase is informative and 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?

The description explains what the output includes (bitrate, padding, channel mode, frame size), which is sufficient given no output schema. It covers the key aspects of the tool's behavior, though it could mention the return format or limits on large files.

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 adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It confirms that 'max_frames' controls the number of frames displayed but does not explain default behavior or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 visualizes MP3 frame structure, listing specific attributes (bitrate, padding bit, channel mode, frame size). It distinguishes from siblings like mp3_detect, mp3_metadata, and mp3_frame_analysis by focusing on layout visualization.

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 viewing frame structure but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mp3_frame_analysis or mp3_sample_analysis. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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