analyze_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially discharges it: enumerating the reported fields implies a pure read/inspection operation, but it never states that the tool is read-only, side-effect free, or how it behaves on unreadable/non-audio paths. Adequate for a trivial inspection tool, but real behavioral gaps remain.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed field corresponds to something the tool actually returns, so nothing is wasted.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the key information an agent needs. It is nearly complete for such a simple read tool, missing only error/failure behavior.

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% and the single parameter is documented as an absolute path, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'for one audio file' reinforces that the parameter identifies a single file but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (report) and resource (one audio file) and enumerates exactly which properties are returned (size, duration, sample rate, channels, codec, bitrate). It is immediately distinguishable from the only sibling, dedupe_folder, but does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative.

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 phrase 'for one audio file' scopes the tool to a single-file inspection, which is mild implicit guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus other tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens with unsupported or missing files.

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