audio_duration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by specifying supported formats (.mp3, .wav, .ogg, .mid) and the internal use of ffprobe, which indicates technical behavior. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., file not found, unsupported format) or whether the operation is read-only, though the latter is implied.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. The additional details about file types and ffprobe are concise and relevant, with no 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the operation, input restrictions, and internal method. It omits error behavior, but that is not critical for such a straightforward getter and would likely be covered by the output schema.

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?

The schema already documents `file_path` clearly, giving 100% coverage. The description enhances this by listing accepted audio formats and clarifying that the file must be created by the server, adding meaning beyond the basic path description.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'duration of any audio file in seconds.' It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on scene creation, animation, and rendering, not audio duration.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you need the duration of an audio file in seconds. It also imposes a constraint ('created by the server'), which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings serve this function.

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