wwise_audio_file_check

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and discloses a limitation (WAAPI does not expose sample rate/channels). This adds behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention any other side effects or permissions required.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the main action, the second clarifies read-only nature, and the third adds a limitation. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main checks and read-only nature. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of flagged sources or summary), leaving some ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none. It effectively explains what the tool operates on without requiring parameters.

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 audits audio sources and flags two specific conditions: sources without original WAV path and original files used by multiple sources. The verb 'Audit' and resource 'audio sources' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like wwise_audit or wwise_compat_check.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for file integrity checks, but does not specify when not to use it or provide comparisons to other audit-related siblings. The note about WAAPI limitations is helpful context but not a usage guideline.

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