audio_maximum_clean_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the evaluation methodology ('AES75-inspired gates') but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or what inputs are required beyond the schema. This is insufficient for an agent to reason about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking critical information about inputs and outputs. Conciseness is not a substitute for completeness; the sentence is too brief to be well-structured for agent comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters, no output schema) and the complete absence of annotation support or schema description coverage, this description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what a 'protected level ladder' is, how the parameters affect the evaluation, or what the result format will be. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description is expected to explain parameter meanings. It does not mention any parameters (levelRuns, minimumCoherence, maximumCompressionDb) or how they relate to the evaluation. The schema provides some type and default information, but no semantic explanation is offered, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of each field.

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 action ('Evaluate') on a specific resource ('a protected level ladder') with explicit metrics (output compression, coherence loss, limiting) and a methodological reference (AES75-inspired gates). This is clear and domain-specific, but 'protected level ladder' is not defined, and it does not distinguish it from closely related tools like rew_compression_analysis.

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, what conditions trigger its use, or how it differs from alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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