audio_speaker_protection_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that only provided evidence is used (the word 'only'), implying it does not rely on external data. However, it does not disclose side effects (none expected for a pure computation), required privileges, or the format of the result. For a compute-only tool this is acceptable but minimal, so a middle score is warranted.

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, grammatically tight sentence that front-loads the main action and result. It has no redundancy or filler. It could be longer to include usage or parameter details, but as written it is appropriately concise for the information it does provide.

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 9 parameters with zero required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent cannot know what inputs are essential, what units are expected, what the returned 'correction floor' and 'permitted boost' look like, or any constraints. The description provides only a high-level summary and leaves substantial required context uncovered.

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% and the description does not map to any specific parameters. Phrases like 'capability, headroom, compression, and limiter evidence' vaguely correspond to some parameters (e.g., continuousSplDb, headroomDb, compressionDb, limiterObserved) but are not explicit. Without per-parameter explanations, the agent cannot determine which values are required or how they influence the output. The description adds little beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 ('Derive') and resource ('correction floor and permitted boost'), and specifies the input categories ('capability, headroom, compression, and limiter evidence'). It clearly conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate it from potential siblings like `audio_maximum_clean_output` or `rew_compression_analysis`, so it misses a distinct positioning among related audio analysis tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description merely states what it computes, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate. This is a critical gap given the large sibling list of audio assessment tools.

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