effect_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning before/after audio but does not disclose whether the operation is non-destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also omits any details about rate limits, state changes, or the nature of the output (format, length). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely renders audio.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity results in under-specification, omitting critical parameter and usage information. It earns a 3 because it is structurally clean but sacrifices substance for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (a nested plugin object with many properties), the lack of any parameter explanation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know how to fill the required 'plugin' and 'path' fields, what the audio output looks like, or how to handle edge cases. The description fails to provide enough context for safe and correct use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'plugin' or 'path' at all. The plugin object is complex with many nested fields (preset_id, automation, parameters, state_base64, etc.) and the description provides no guidance on how to construct or use it. The agent is left with only type names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('Render'), resource ('effect'), and output ('before/after audio'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sound_probe or effect_search, but the focus on rendering an effect for assessment is fairly distinct. The purpose is not tautological and adds meaningful action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sound_probe, instrument_probe, or effect_search. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing it against siblings, leaving the agent to guess.

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