audio_analyze

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clarifies the measurement scope and explicitly excludes LUFS/true peak, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, error conditions, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a clear exclusion. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers what the tool measures and what it doesn't, but it does not describe the output/return format, which is absent from the schema. For a measurement tool, the agent might need to know how results are returned (e.g., numeric values, report structure), which is a notable gap.

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%, so the description must explain the 'path' parameter. It specifies that the file must be a local mono/stereo WAV, adding file-type and location constraints not present in the schema. This is essential for correct invocation, though it does not cover path format details.

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 states a specific verb 'Measure' and resource 'local mono/stereo WAV', enumerating the metrics (sample peak, RMS, silence, clipping) and explicitly excluding LUFS/true peak. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'audio_measure', so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 provides a clear when-not condition ('This does not measure LUFS or true peak'), telling the agent when not to use it, but it does not name an alternative tool to use for those measurements. It implies usage context but lacks explicit alternatives.

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