garageband_audio_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that frame count is reported only 'when available' (partial availability), but does not address failure modes (e.g., unsupported format, missing file) or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently lists all key attributes. No redundant words; every part adds value.

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?

The description lists the reported fields but does not specify the output structure (e.g., JSON object). With no output schema, more detail on the return format would improve completeness. However, the listed fields give a basic understanding.

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 coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'exported audio file' for context but does not specify the expected format of the 'path' parameter (e.g., absolute/relative path, file://). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('exported audio file'), and lists the exact attributes reported. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'garageband_midi_info' which inspect MIDI files.

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 inspecting exported audio files but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., file must exist). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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