audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool measures audio and implies a start/status/stop lifecycle, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or detailed response behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a precise lifecycle instruction. No wasted words; every sentence 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 tool is complex (27 parameters, 7 enums, no output schema), and the description provides only the core flow. It does not explain the return shape beyond 'dBFS buckets' or how key parameters like probeAction and bucketMs interact. Schema helps, but the description leaves gaps.

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 93%, and the description itself adds no parameter-specific information. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the many parameters and enums.

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 uses a specific verb ('Measure') with a clear resource ('browser or host-rendered simulator/emulator audio') and a concrete output ('compact dBFS buckets'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like network or perf.

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 explicitly instructs sequencing: 'Start a probe before requesting its status or stopping it.' This provides clear contextual usage but does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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