media_loudness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the standard (EBU R128) and the returned metrics, but does not address edge cases (e.g., missing file, invalid audio, computational cost). While it provides a basic behavioral outline, it lacks depth.

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 concise, consisting of a single-line summary followed by a bullet list of outputs and an 'Args' section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the structure could be improved by grouping related info (e.g., outputs and args).

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, input, and output metrics. However, it omits potential error conditions or file size constraints. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 single parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds 'Path to audio/video file', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 'path' title. However, it does not specify supported formats, file size limits, or required permissions. With low coverage, more detail is expected.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze audio loudness (EBU R128 / LUFS)' and specifies the output metrics (integrated loudness, loudness range, true peak). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on video editing or other audio processing tasks like beat detection or silence removal.

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 implies usage for loudness analysis, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, given the sibling set, there is no other loudness tool, so the context is clear. The description could improve by noting that it is the only tool for EBU R128 analysis.

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