analyze_audio_clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail: 'Loudness measures the source stream; channel selection applies to optional analyses,' clarifying how loudness and channelIndex interact, and reiterates the source-only nature. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 fluff. The primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second clarifies technical nuances. Every clause earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and measurement behavior. It could mention the return structure (e.g., analysis results object), but the detailed parameter schema and clarity on what is measured make it sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gap in output description, but not critical.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented. The description adds a small amount of context (e.g., 'bounded window' implies startSeconds/durationSeconds, channel selection applies to optional analyses), but does not materially enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Measure') and a precise resource ('an exact Session or Arrangement audio clip's local source file over a bounded window'). It explicitly notes 'Source-only, not rendered clip or track audio,' which distinguishes it from potential siblings like analyze_audio_file or get_audio_clip_state. This gives clear purpose and differentiation.

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 clarifies that it operates on the source file, not the rendered audio, which tells the agent when not to use it (e.g., if rendered audio is needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like analyze_audio_file or get_audio_clip_state, leaving some routing inference to the agent. Still, the scope is well-defined.

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