audio_analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result ('Ends with `issues`: plain-language problems ranked by severity') and a runtime cost knob. It stops short of noting limits such as supported formats, file-size constraints, or expected runtime.

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 long capability list is dense rather than padded, every clause names a distinct measurement, and the core purpose leads the sentence. It is on the verbose side but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially, naming the `issues` summary and the category of measurements returned. For a 5-parameter analysis tool it is close to complete, lacking only parameter units and format/limit caveats.

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 carry the burden. It does explain two parameters meaningfully – `start`/`end` as the analyzed section and `pitch`/`rhythm` as speed-vs-depth toggles – but it never states the units for start/end (seconds?) and says nothing about `path` beyond the obvious.

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?

States a concrete verb (measure) and resource (an audio file or its start..end section), then enumerates the exact measurement families produced: loudness, clipping, DC offset, silence/noise floor, stereo field, spectral balance, pitch, onsets/tempo, loop-seam quality. That enumeration makes it easy to separate from siblings like audio_info (metadata) or audio_compare.

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 only actionable guidance is the performance tradeoff 'Set pitch/rhythm to false to run faster,' plus the implicit scoping note about analyzing a start..end section. There is no explicit when-to-use versus audio_info, audio_check_delivery, or audio_compare, so usage is only implied.

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