probe_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that times are relative to the cut and anchored by source.start_ms, and lists all extracted features. It does not mention performance, file size limits, or side effects, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and provides a wealth of detail. However, it is lengthy due to listing many features in the first sentence; a slightly more concise listing or use of categories could improve readability without losing 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 the complexity of the tool (audio analysis with many output features), the description is highly complete. It covers input formats, output content, use cases, and time-windowing behavior. No output schema exists, but the description implicitly covers what the report contains, making it sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, but the tool description adds value by explaining the behavior of from_s/to_s: 'zoom into a time window instead of probing the whole file (report times are then relative to the cut; source.start_ms anchors them).' This clarifies the effect and timing, going beyond the schema's simple 'analyze only from this time' description.

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 a specific verb ('Extract') and clearly defines the resource ('full feature report') with extensive detail on what is extracted (LUFS, true peak, LRA, onsets, pitch track, melody notes, MFCC, chroma, key, chord timeline, tempo, rhythm, stereo image, sections, silence, clipping). It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like 'probe_digest' which likely does a lighter analysis, though not explicitly stated.

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 explicitly states use cases ('check loudness targets, confirm onset timing or tempo, read back the melody, see chord progression') and explains the optional time windowing ('Pass from_s/to_s to zoom into a time window'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context makes it clear this is the comprehensive analysis tool.

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