analyze_find_clipping

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 labels are created (a mutation), but does not mention whether the audio is modified, permissions required, or reversibility. The algorithm details (duty cycle) are helpful but side effects are only partially 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 concise: two introductory sentences naming the action and output, followed by parameter documentation. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers what the tool does, the parameters, and the output (labels created). It lacks mention of return value, but since labels are created as side effect, the description is nearly 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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the purpose of each parameter (duty_cycle_start and duty_cycle_end), their valid ranges (1-1000), and default values. The schema only provides type and default, so the description is essential for correct usage.

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 the tool's purpose: finding clipping in selected audio and creating labels at clipped regions. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_beat_finder' which focuses on beat detection.

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 implies usage for detecting audio clipping but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but could be improved with explicit context.

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