find_frequency_masking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses side effects (reads both files), an error path (mismatched sample rates raise a structured error), and a guard (identical paths are rejected). It stops short of describing the return payload or any performance/rate concerns.

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 core comparison is front-loaded, followed by succinct side-effect, example, and edge-case lines. Every line adds information, though the 'Side effects: reads both files' line is thin relative to its dedicated slot.

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?

For a 3-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and error behavior but only vaguely gestures at the return ('suggests band-level cuts') without saying what data comes back. That leaves an agent unable to anticipate the response shape.

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, and it does: it explains that target_path is compared against reference_path and that threshold_db is the dB margin (default 6 in schema) above which a band qualifies. The path parameters' expected content (e.g., file vs track identifiers) is still left implicit.

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 operation: identify frequency bands where target_path exceeds reference_path by threshold_db dB. The verb ('Identify') and resource ('frequency bands') are concrete and computable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with near-neighbour analysis tools like analyze_mix or analyze_audio, so it falls short of a 5.

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 worked example shows a concrete invocation, and edge cases note the failure modes, which implies when it applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives, and no stated prerequisites beyond implied file paths.

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