audio

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) but do not contradict the description. However, the description adds no behavioral details such as side effects of actions, required permissions, or state changes. For a tool managing audio buses and streams, crucial transparency is missing, placing the burden on the description which it fails to meet.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main concept, but it is too concise to convey necessary information, instead deferring to an external help tool. It sacrifices substantive content for brevity, making it merely adequate rather than well-structured.

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 (10 parameters, multiple actions) and the lack of output schema details, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters relate to actions or what the tool's effects are, and the suggestion to use the help tool acknowledges this gap.

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 100%, meaning the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing action names, which the schema's enum also provides. Since baseline is 3 for high coverage, the description's negligible extra value results in a score of 3.

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 identifies the tool as handling audio bus and stream management and lists four actions, which gives a general sense of purpose but lacks specificity for each action. It does not differentiate among siblings, but siblings are distinct domains like animation or editor, so the main gap is the lack of detail on what exactly the tool does beyond the broad category.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or the help tool. The description merely lists actions without explaining which action to choose for which scenario, and explicitly tells users to rely on an external help tool for full docs, indicating the description is insufficient for usage decisions.

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