get-audio-info

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and lists the specific data types returned, which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like layers without audio or error conditions, so it carries most but not all transparency burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It lists exactly what the tool returns without extra words.

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?

The description lists the return contents (metadata, path, markers, keyframes) which is sufficient given the simple getter nature. It does not need an output schema because the description enumerates the returned data. However, it does not mention any prerequisites about the layer having audio.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: audio metadata, source file path, existing markers, and audio level keyframes. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation tools like set-audio-levels and analyze-audio-waveform.

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 lacks any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer it over analyze-audio-waveform or set-audio-levels, so the usage context is implied only.

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