analyze_loudness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool 'measures,' implying no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention any permissions or limitations such as file format support. More detail would improve transparency.

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 two sentences: the first lists the measurements, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 does not explain what the tool returns, although it lists the metrics measured. The return format (e.g., object with fields) is missing, which could cause uncertainty despite the low parameter count.

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 single parameter 'input' is described in the schema as 'absolute path to an audio file,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantics like allowed formats or size constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool measures specific loudness metrics (LUFS, dBTP, LRA, gating threshold), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_dolby, master_audio, and mix_vocal_over_beat, which involve exporting, mastering, or mixing.

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 provides explicit guidance to call before or after mastering to verify levels against targets, with concrete examples like hip-hop (-9 to -10 LUFS) and streaming (-14 LUFS). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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