analyze_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: accepted URL/file paths, inline base64 sending, a 25MB guardrail, supported formats, and the specific model. It does not mention response format or potential limitations, but for a read-only analysis tool the disclosed constraints are substantial.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It conveys purpose, usage context, and key input constraints in just two sentences without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, accepted input forms, formats, and size limits. It does not describe the response structure, but that may be predictable for an analysis tool. The level of detail is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that local files are sent inline as base64, specifying the 25MB guardrail, and listing supported file extensions. This operational detail is not present in the schema's description of audio_url.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Listen to and analyze an audio file') and identifies the underlying model (Qwen3.5-Omni). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_image and analyze_audio_video by scoping to audio only and mentioning native audio understanding.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever you need to hear audio you cannot process natively,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as analyze_audio_video for files that also contain video.

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