sound_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output (local audio path and hash) and one constraint ('No model/provider configuration'), but does not disclose side effects, safety (e.g., whether it is read-only), or any potential performance or resource implications. For a render operation, this is a notable gap.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and following with a key constraint. It wastes no words, though it could have used the second sentence to convey more behavioral or usage context rather than a minor configuration note.

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 complexity of the input schema (nested plugin object, automation, parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, what the returned hash is for, or any side effects. An agent would need to infer most details from the schema, which has no descriptions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the nested plugin object and other parameters. It does not mention bpm, pitches, velocity, or any plugin subfields like preset_id or parameters. The only hint is 'preset audition,' which loosely implies a preset_id, but it provides no meaningful semantic detail for any parameter.

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's function: 'Render a short preset audition and return a local audio path and hash for the calling AI to review.' This is a specific verb (render) and resource (preset audition) with a concrete outcome. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sound_audition_in_context, which may serve a similar audition purpose, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies a lightweight audition use case via 'short preset audition' and 'No model/provider configuration,' but does not state when to choose this over sound_audition_in_context or other sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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