iamf_validate

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It details the checks performed (structural L1, semantic L2, including S-407/S-408/S-409), the full report structure, parameter effects (strict, profile), and the L3 limitation, offering rich behavioral context.

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 well-structured: a clear opening, then a detailed but focused paragraph on checks and output, followed by parameter notes. Every sentence adds value with no 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 tool's complexity, the description covers input scope, validation levels, output report contents, parameter behavior, and an explicit limitation about L3. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description explains the meaning of 'strict' and 'profile', and the first sentence makes it clear that 'path' is the target IAMF file. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though possible profile values are not enumerated.

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 opens with 'Validate an IAMF file (raw .iamf or IAMF-in-MP4) with iamf-sentinel', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on conformance validation rather than inspection or compilation.

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 states it runs L1/L2 checks and explicitly notes 'L3 rendered-loudness QC ... is not exposed', providing a clear exclusion. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or give 'when to use' scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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