audio_forensics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and side effects. It describes downloading and analyzing files, which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications occur, what permissions are required, or potential side effects like data transfer or storage. The description is action-focused but lacks necessary behavioral caveats.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's actions and its automation value. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has a simple interface with one parameter and a clear action sequence, but the description omits details about the output format, prerequisites, or edge cases. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps that would be particularly problematic given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'callId', with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'a call' but does not explicitly link it to the 'callId' parameter or explain how to obtain it. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 with specific verbs (download, run, locate) and identifies the resource (3 recording tracks of a call). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are focused on agent management and evaluation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating it automates the manual audio investigation, implying use when investigating noise in call recordings. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but since sibling tools are unrelated, the usage context is sufficiently clear; however, there is no 'when not to use' exclusion.

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