audio_batch_survey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return contents (issues list, per-file table, suggested_fixes with ready-to-use operations) and that recursion is applied, though it says nothing about cost or large-folder behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the report contents and the audio_batch_process handoff. Every clause carries information; only the parenthetical examples make it slightly heavier than needed.

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 burden of describing returns and does so adequately (consistency findings, per-file table, suggested_fixes). For a 2-parameter read-only tool this is essentially complete, missing only corpus-size or performance 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 compensate and largely does: it explains target accepts a folder OR a list of files, and that pattern is a glob (e.g. "*.wav", "footstep*") used to filter. It omits the explicit default "*", which the schema still supplies.

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 specific verb (analyze/report) and resource (a folder of audio files or a list of files) with the exact scope of analysis: loudness, sample rates/channels/formats, and leading silence. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling audio_batch_process by being the read-only consistency survey whose suggested_fixes feed that tool.

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 makes the use case clear (checking batch consistency before processing) and explicitly names the downstream tool audio_batch_process, which routes the agent within the sibling set. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, so no exclusions are given.

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