verify_audio

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the failure condition — empty or non-finite samples cause rejection — plus the cost signal that the entire file is decoded in blocks. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about what a partial/failed decode returns.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the primary action (decode the complete file) is front-loaded ahead of the rejection rule. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is a different problem than verbosity.

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, full parameter coverage, and annotations present, the description carries a lighter burden and does cover the core action and one failure mode. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs among the several audio-inspection siblings (probe_audio, analyze_audio), leaving a real gap for a one-param tool in a crowded namespace.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that audio_path is an absolute or caller-relative local file path. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 gives concrete mechanics (decode the complete file in blocks, reject empty or non-finite samples) from which an agent can infer this validates audio decodability, but it never states the purpose directly as "verify an audio file decodes cleanly." It also does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like probe_audio or analyze_audio, so the agent must guess which validation tool applies.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., file must exist locally), and no mention of alternatives such as probe_audio or analyze_audio. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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