audio_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that comparison is in feature space (not byte), reports verdicts with dimension names, and describes the optional spectrogram output with color coding (red/blue/black). It also notes the sample rate constraint for spectrogram. This is transparent, though it does not cover potential side effects, permissions, or file size limits.

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 a single dense paragraph but remains informative without excessive length. It front-loads the main purpose and then details parameters and usage. The length is appropriate, and every sentence contributes value.

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 must explain return values. It does so by listing verdict categories (byte-identical, tier-2 equivalent, different) and stating that different names diverging dimensions. It also covers optional outputs (json report, spectrogram). For 5 parameters and a complex comparison tool, this is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the spectrogram parameter's output (signed difference heat map with color meanings), the json parameter's effect (append full report), and the window_ms parameter's role (segment window length). It also reiterates supported formats for audio paths. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it compares two audio files in feature space (loudness, onsets, pitch, key, timbre distance, per-segment RMS) and reports a verdict. It distinguishes from byte-byte comparison and mentions supported formats (WAV, FLAC, mp3, ogg). This is specific and differentiates from siblings like spectrogram or probe_audio.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this to check whether a re-render, edit, or platform change actually altered the audio in a way that matters.' It also clarifies that a 'different' verdict is normal and not a tool failure. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools despite the sibling list.

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