audio_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an adaptive threshold that adjusts to background level, an example output line format, and mention of spacing regularity and pitch sequences. Not exhaustive (no cost/limit notes) but well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the returned attributes, then folds parameter behavior into the same tight paragraph with a concrete example line. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the stray 'as_text' reference adds mild confusion.

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 convincingly via the attribute list, example line, and regularity/pitch reporting. The remaining gap is undocumented start/end semantics on a 5-parameter tool, a minor omission given the otherwise rich output description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and it partially does: threshold_db (dBFS override) and split_on_onsets are explained with their effect. But path, start, and end are never described, and 'as_text' is referenced as if it were a parameter though it does not appear in the schema, so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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+resource ('split the audio into distinct sound events') and enumerates the per-event attributes produced, so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings like audio_melody or audio_analyze, which limits it below a 5.

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?

Offers conditional guidance for two parameters (override threshold_db; set split_on_onsets=false to keep continuous sounds as one event), which implies usage contexts. However, it never states when to pick this tool over alternatives such as audio_melody or audio_analyze, so routing is left to inference.

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