ae_analyze_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the marker-writing side effect and its cost ('one undo step'), the time-base conversion when reading a layer source, and the WAV format restriction. It doesn't say whether the analysis itself is read-only or what the returned peak data looks like, leaving some behavioral ground uncovered.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then invocation modes, then the marker side effect. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical about marker placement is slightly tangled and could be split for readability.

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 and nine parameters, the description adequately covers the mode selection, the destructive-ish marker behavior, and the input format constraint. The return shape is only implied via the envelope flag, which is a minor gap for an analysis 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 89%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: the path-vs-comp+layer relationship, the comp-time conversion, and the targeting rule for addMarkers (layer, or composition when only path is given) — the latter compensating for addMarkers having no schema description at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze a WAV file') and names the concrete outputs (peak envelope, transient peaks/beats/hits), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like ae_get_audio_info or ae_add_markers, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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?

Gives clear invocation context for both modes ('Pass path, or comp + layer to use the layer's source file') and a hard precondition ('Only uncompressed PCM/float WAV'). It stops short of 5 because it never says when to prefer this over ae_get_audio_info or ae_add_markers.

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