Analyze Timbre

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the analysis computes, and the presence of an output schema covers the return value, but it never states that the tool is read-only/non-destructive or what the 'source' selection implies. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage then window syntax; every sentence carries information. The window-selection sentence is long and dense but each example earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the window semantics are well covered. However, for a 5-parameter, 0%-coverage, unannotated tool, the unexplained 'source' parameter (which sound is analyzed) and the phantom 'bars' option leave real gaps.

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. It thoroughly documents the window selectors (span/end-exclusive with worked examples, t0/t1 in seconds), which is high value, but leaves 'source' and 'project' entirely unexplained and references a 'bars' parameter that does not exist in the schema, creating mild confusion.

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 ('Describe the sound') plus the exact output dimensions (envelope, pitch, harmonic profile, waveform guess, brightness/filter, noisiness, stereo width). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like analyze_spectrum, analyze_envelope, and analyze_formants.

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?

Gives a clear use context: 'Use on isolated sounds (stems, sound bank, soloed tracks) for sound design.' It implies when this tool is appropriate but does not explicitly rule out the noisy/mixed-material cases handled by other analysis tools, so it stops just short of naming an alternative.

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