audio_evaluation_corpus_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. The word 'Audit' suggests a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it describe what happens on failure or what the output format is. This ambiguity is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the audit targets and criteria. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the complexity of the schema (four arrays with many nested fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the tool's role relative to other artifact tools, the meaning of 'audit' in terms of side effects, or what the caller should expect in response. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 description names the four array parameters (synthetic, external, loopback, cross-tool) and the audited properties, giving some semantic context over the raw schema. However, it does not explain the structure of each artifact object or how the audit results are conveyed, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 ('Audit') and specifies the resource categories (synthetic, external, loopback, cross-tool reference artifacts) and the attributes checked (hashes, licenses, independence, provenance, regression tolerances). It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from nearby validation tools like audio_artifact_validate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_artifact_validate or audio_dataset_catalog. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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