Extract audio features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context beyond these: it may trigger a macOS permission dialog, the Sensitivity knob scales all channels, and it produces raw signals rather than a visual. It doesn't mention every side effect but sufficiently discloses the key behaviors for an open-world creation 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 dense but well-structured: it leads with purpose, then contrasts with alternatives, explains output usage, and lists source options. It is longer than minimal but earns its length with actionable guidance and no filler.

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?

This is a fairly complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the output channels, how to bind them, source choices, permission caveats, and alternatives. It gives enough context for an agent to select and use the tool without needing additional resources.

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 100% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a practical binding example ('op('…/audio_features/features')['bass']') and mentions the Sensitivity knob, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Build an audio-analysis chain' that exposes reactive channels on a Null CHOP, and explicitly contrasts itself with create_audio_reactive ('renders a spectrum visual') and create_spectrum ('N fine per-band channels'). This clearly distinguishes its purpose from nearby siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for raw signals to drive ANY parameter, use create_spectrum for fine per-band channels, and pass this Null as source_chop to bind_audio_reactive. It also explains the four source modes and their appropriate use cases (testing, file, live device, existing CHOP).

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