analyze_audio

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

Discloses input methods, allowed formats, and a 25MB guardrail. But omits details on what the tool does with the audio (e.g., processing, storage, or deletion) and whether it is read-only. No annotations are provided so the description carries the full burden.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and input methods with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Covers input details and purpose adequately, but lacks any mention of output format or content, which is critical for an analysis tool. Without an output schema, the agent cannot infer what the tool returns.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about audio_url handling (base64 for local files) and allowed formats, but does not significantly augment the schema-provided semantics.

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 action ('Analyze an audio file'), specifies the model used (Qwen3.5-Omni with native audio understanding), and distinguishes from siblings like analyze_video and analyze_image by focusing solely on audio input.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: for analyzing audio files via URL or local path, with format and size limits. However, does not explicitly exclude scenarios where sibling tools (e.g., analyze_audio_video) would be more appropriate.

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