analyze-audio-waveform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (normalized amplitude values and peak times), the transcoding behavior for non-WAV formats, dependency on ffmpeg, and the env var override. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the input schema, though it doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 description is dense but well-organized: purpose, prerequisite step, return details, and format handling. Each sentence earns its place, no fluff. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then provides critical workflow and dependency information.

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?

Given two params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (get-audio-info first), output shape, and format constraints. It doesn't explain what 'peaks/transients' mean or specify time intervals, but these are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool correctly. Overall, it's fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying filePath semantics ('WAV works with no extra dependency; other formats need ffmpeg') and numPoints ('Higher = more detail'). These reinforce and extend the schema descriptions, making the tool easier to invoke correctly.

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 explicitly states 'Analyze an audio file to extract waveform amplitude data and detect peaks/transients.' This is a specific verb+resource+scoped purpose, and it distinguishes from siblings like get-audio-info (which likely returns metadata) and animate-to-audio (which uses audio for animation).

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 description gives clear usage context: 'First call get-audio-info to retrieve the sourceFilePath, then pass it here.' It also explains when ffmpeg is needed versus native WAV support. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like animate-to-audio or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a fully explicit when-not/alternatives statement.

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