show_spectrogram

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is thin; the description carries the burden and does so by fully characterizing the returned artifact (colour coding, reference lines at 100 Hz/1 kHz/10 kHz, section markers). This is exactly the behavior an agent needs since no output schema exists. It omits any note on rendering cost, delivery format of the image, or default scope when no bars are given.

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-loaded with the one-line essence ('A picture of the sound to look at') before the axis/colour legend and the interpretation list. Three tight sentences, every clause carrying usable information, nothing redundant.

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 and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description compensates well by explaining both axis semantics and what visual features to look for. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. Gaps are minor: no mention of image delivery/return format or default range behaviour.

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%, with track, start_bar and end_bar all documented in the schema itself (including the 1-based fractional bar convention). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 states a specific resource and output form: a spectrogram image of the sound, with axes spelled out (time left-to-right, frequency bottom-to-top, loudness as colour). An agent immediately knows this renders a visual artifact. It does not, however, differentiate itself from apparent siblings like analyze_audio or check_vocal_clarity, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 'Read it for:' list gives concrete diagnostic situations (mud, harshness, crowding, clipping/pumping, masked vocal, identical sections), which is clear when-to-use context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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