Analyze a rendered WAV

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral constraint: pitch detection only works on monophonic renders, which is non-obvious and critical for correct invocation. It also clarifies the output scope without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose (report metrics) is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about monophonic rendering is placed in the second sentence. Every phrase adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, which places a heavy burden on the description to explain return structure and parameter semantics. It only covers the main output types and a single constraint, leaving most parameter behavior unexplained. An agent would struggle to correctly set maxFrequency, minFrequency, windowSeconds, or channel without additional context. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is only 14% – only 'path' has a description, leaving channel, detectPitch, maxSegments, maxFrequency, minFrequency, and windowSeconds undocumented in the schema. The description fails to compensate: it only mentions that pitch detection is optional and mentions monophonic requirements, but provides no meaning for the other parameters. This is a major gap for an agent trying to set frequency bounds or segmentation behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('WAV file'), enumerating the outputs (duration, peak/RMS level, silence) and the optional pitch detection. It clearly distinguishes from sibling analysis tools like summarize_fms or compute_ticks by focusing on WAV audio analysis, and even references export_audio as a related but different tool.

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 explicit guidance for the pitch detection option: it expects a monophonic render and gives a concrete example of how to produce one using export_audio with separateChannels. This helps the agent decide when to enable detectPitch. It does not fully contrast with all sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for a read-only analysis tool.

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