Analyze audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it discloses the essentia_unavailable failure mode for builds without Essentia, the caching behavior, and the progress reporting mechanism when a progressToken is present. This is unusually rich behavioral context for an analysis tool.

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 dense sentence plus one short sentence about the failure mode, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the progressToken sentence could be seen as slightly implementation-flavored, but it earns its place by explaining observable behavior.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return-adjacent behavior (caching location, progress reporting) and failure modes. It doesn't explain what the cached results contain or how to consume them, but it points to auto_edit/assemble as consumers, which is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 already 100%, so the schema documents both params, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that target can be a project package OR a single file, and that results cache next to the project. The types parameter syntax and default are better handled in the schema, so the description adds modest but real value.

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+resource (runs Essentia audio analysis) and enumerates the analysis categories (segment boundaries, beats, BPM), plus the target scope (project audio files or a single standalone file). It clearly distinguishes itself from cron-like siblings in the list, none of which do audio analysis.

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 clear context for usage, noting it caches results 'next to the project for auto_edit/assemble to use', which explains when and why an agent would call it. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow linkage is clear.

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