probe_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the extracted features (onsets, pitch, tempo, etc.) and states 'no score needed,' implying a non-destructive, analysis-only operation. It does not explicitly guarantee no side effects, but the read-only nature is clear from context.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and scope, second lists features succinctly, third gives practical use cases. No redundancy, front-loaded with action verb, and every sentence adds 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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (full feature report with listed items) and input constraints. Could be improved by specifying output format, but for a single-parameter tool, it is largely 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?

The schema already provides extensive description for the only parameter (audio_path) with supported formats. As schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter beyond confirming file types.

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 explicitly states 'Extract the full feature report... from any WAV or FLAC file' using a specific verb and resource. It lists the exact features (LUFS, true peak, LRA, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a comprehensive numerical listening tool, unlike the other specialized tools.

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 clear use cases: 'check loudness targets, confirm onset timing or tempo, or read back pitch/key/stereo width.' It implies that this tool is for numerical analysis, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention when to use sibling tools.

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