Audio file or session info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations — loudness=true "renders the audio once" (a cost side effect) and waveform=true returns a picture of only the first file — but omits batch behavior and the 200-item cap.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the returned fields before the optional flags. Every clause carries information, though the first sentence is long enough to be 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 has to carry the return-value burden, and it does list the field categories. However, it says nothing about how inputs are selected (dir vs path vs array) or the shape/nesting of the result, which an agent needs for a 5-parameter tool.

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 only 40%, and the three undocumented parameters (input_dir, input_path, input_paths) are the ones that actually control what gets inspected — yet the description never explains the difference between them or what happens when the multiple-path array is used. The loudness/waveform explanations largely restate what the schema already documents.

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 names the concrete resource and the fields returned: format, channels, sample rate, bit depth, length for audio files, and tracks/clips/plugins/busses/markers/tempo for .scraft sessions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_soundcraft_status or list_soundcraft_catalog. It lacks an explicit verb ("get"/"inspect"), but the enumeration makes the capability 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?

It describes what the loudness and waveform flags do, which implies when to enable them, but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what preconditions apply (e.g., must the file exist, does it need SoundCraft open?). No exclusions or sibling routing are given, so usage is only implied.

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