resolve_classify_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (classify audio) and scope, but does not mention side effects, whether it modifies the project, if it is a long-running operation, what the output is, or any requirements (e.g., must have a project loaded). The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately brief for a tool with only two optional parameters and no complex logic described. The structure is clean and efficient.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is expected to provide more contextual completeness. It does not explain what 'classify' produces, where results are stored, whether it returns data, or if it has any prerequisites (e.g., must have an open project or timeline). It also does not mention error conditions or the effect of both parameters being set. For a tool with two optional params, the description is minimal and leaves many operational questions unanswered, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 does add some semantics: 'one clip' maps to clip_name, and 'current/specified folder' maps to folder_path. It also implies that folder_path can be empty to use the current folder. However, it does not clarify behavior when both parameters are provided, the meaning of 'classify' in this context, or any defaults beyond what is in the schema. It adds some value but leaves ambiguity.

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 purpose: 'Classify audio' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_transcribe_audio and resolve_clear_audio_classification by focusing on classification rather than transcription or clearing. The mention of 'one clip, or the current/specified folder AND nested folders' gives precise operational scope.

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 gives some usage context by specifying the two modes (single clip vs. folder), which implies when each parameter should be used. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this instead of transcribe_audio for classification.' There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and siblings.

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