probe_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the digest is token-cheap, deterministic, ~40 lines, and provides a windowed timeline table. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, but the context implies passive analysis. Slightly lacking in safety disclosure, but overall good.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Perfectly concise while conveying all necessary 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 absence of an output schema, the description lists the digest's contents (duration, loudness, etc.) and mentions the format (~40 lines, windowed timeline table). It compares to probe_audio, providing context. Missing explicit return structure, but sufficient for most use cases.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by linking window_ms to the digest's timeline rows ('windowed timeline table') and reinforcing audio_path's accepted formats (WAV or FLAC). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool produces a deterministic text digest for WAV or FLAC files, listing specific fields (duration, loudness, etc.). It distinguishes itself from probe_audio by being a 'token-cheap' alternative, thus achieving high purpose clarity.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Reach for this first when you just need a sense of what's in a file, and only fall back to probe_audio when you need exact numbers to assert against.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively differentiating from siblings.

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