Sound Compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral detail: the meaning of the '<< >>' markers (>6 dB off), the metric set returned, and the accepted source syntax. It does not disclose permissions, whether it mutates anything, or performance characteristics, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 output, then transitions to parameter guidance in two tight clauses. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description usefully previews them. For a 9-param, no-annotation analysis tool, the main gaps are fmin/fmax and per-source slice parameters, which the schema at least defaults.

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% across 9 params, so the description must compensate. It does explain source string formats ('sound:<name>', 'ref:drums', 'track:x') and the window/span slice semantics (seconds vs fractional bars), but leaves fmin/fmax, project, and the relationship between a_window/b_window and a_span/b_span unaddressed.

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 and resource: A/B compare two sounds, and enumerates the concrete outputs (1/3-octave bands, onset envelope, centroid, stereo width, one distance number). This clearly distinguishes it as a spectral/sonic A/B tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'compare' 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 mechanics of how to point it at sources and slices are described, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no routing away from alternatives like 'compare' or 'analyze_spectrum'.

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