gaudio-developers-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries significant weight. It effectively documents the four status states and their meanings, notes that downloadUrl is conditionally present on success, and warns about the 48-hour URL expiration—critical behavioral constraints not visible in the schema.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose statement first, followed by status enumeration, followed by expiration constraint. Every sentence delivers unique, high-value information without redundancy.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the expected response structure (status values and downloadUrl behavior). Minor gaps remain regarding error handling (e.g., invalid jobId responses), but it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 100%, documenting both jobId (with origin references) and model. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 core action ('Check job status and get results') with a specific verb and resource. While it implies retrieval from sibling creation tools via the schema's jobId description, the description text itself does not explicitly distinguish when to use this versus creating jobs, falling short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the jobId parameter reference to sibling tools (gaudio_create_job, gaudio_separate_audio), and the status lifecycle description suggests a polling pattern. However, there are no explicit guidelines on when to call this tool, polling frequency, or terminal state handling.

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