analyze_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Queue' usefully signals asynchronous job submission rather than a blocking call, but the description does not state that a job handle is returned or that get_job is needed to retrieve results. It adds some context but leaves the async workflow implicit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every term (full-file, each metric, BS.1770) carries meaning. It is efficient, though so terse that the async nature is only hinted at by 'Queue'.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the main remaining gap is workflow: the description never says this is a queued job whose result must be fetched later. For an async, non-idempotent tool in a suite full of job-based siblings, that is a meaningful omission.

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%, with both audio_path and output_dir documented including the overwrite-prevention behavior of output_dir. The description adds only the 'full-file' scope note and no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (queue) and resource (audio analysis) plus the exact metrics computed (peak, RMS, clipping, BS.1770 integrated loudness). This clearly separates it from probe_audio or verify_audio in intent, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the closely related siblings (probe_audio, verify_audio) that an agent would need to choose between. The agent must infer selection criteria from the metric list alone.

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