analyze_audio

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context on top: it details exactly what gets returned (LUFS, dBTP, stereo correlation, spectral bands, dropouts, notes) and how the 'sections' and 'images' options alter 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 long but densely informative and front-loads its purpose before listing return details. Every clause contributes necessary information about output content, with no filler, though the run-on structure makes it slightly dense.

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 no output schema, the description admirably covers the return payload, and annotations handle safety. Gaps remain around supported audio formats and expected 'path' format, but for a read-only analysis tool the definition is largely complete.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains 'sections' (locators or [{name, start, end}] in seconds) and 'images' (adds spectrogram and waveform PNGs), covering two of three parameters well; only the obvious 'path' lacks format guidance.

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 ('Measure') and resource ('an audio file') and immediately clarifies the goal ('judge a mix without hearing it'). It enumerates the exact metrics returned, making it clearly distinct from siblings like export_audio or get_meters.

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 phrase 'so you can judge a mix without hearing it' implies the analysis use case, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as get_meters or export_audio, nor any when-not guidance. Usage is suggested rather than stated.

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