loudness_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format, sampling behavior, and that times are measured from the start of the file. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the nature of the tool (analyzing audio) implies no side effects; still, a brief note about computational cost or error conditions would push it to 5.

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 compact and well-organized: it states the tool's output first, then the use case, and closes with an important time-origin note and cross-reference to an alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it quick to parse.

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 that there is no output schema, the description names the expected data (momentary and short-term LUFS) and the file-format support, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. It also addresses a key subtlety (time origin) and points to an alternative for a different scenario. It stops just short of fully describing the exact JSON structure, but the information provided is enough for typical selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides full descriptive text for both parameters (audio_path and hop_ms), including the EBU R128 context for the default hop. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating the ~100ms sampling and time origin. It does not enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline of 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 defines the tool as producing a loudness-over-time curve in JSON, with specific measurement windows (momentary and short-term). It explicitly contrasts this with the integrated-LUFS/LRA summary of probe_audio, making the tool's unique value unmistakable.

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 concrete use cases (checking if a change moved dynamics, finding the loudest moment) and explicitly points to probe_audio as the alternative for windowed analysis with an anchored offset. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance that helps an agent select correctly.

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