analyze_audio

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds a genuine performance trait by disclosing that rendering is offline (faster than real time) yet takes noticeable time for long ranges, which matters for timeout and batching decisions. It does not say whether the call blocks or how results are returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence covers the one non-obvious cost. The metric enumeration is long but each item is informative, so it is close to fully earning its space.

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 takes on the burden of describing results and does so by listing every measured quantity, and the readOnly annotation covers the safety profile. What remains thin is the absence of usage routing against sibling analysis tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so track, start_bar, and end_bar are already fully documented, and the description only echoes the track/master distinction without adding bar-range or fraction semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 pair (renders and measures) on a specific resource (the mix or one track) and enumerates exactly the metrics produced, from LUFS and true peak to stereo correlation and frequency balance. The metric list is distinctive enough that an agent can separate this from measure_tracks, analyze_sample, or show_spectrogram without opening another schema.

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 phrase 'the mix or one track' implies when each mode applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (measure_tracks, compare_mix_to_style, analyze_sample all sit nearby). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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