audio_events

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ({top, rollup, timeline}) and explicitly notes the limitation regarding mood analysis. It also mentions YAMNet is free and local, which implies no external API calls or costs.

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 concise with two well-structured paragraphs. The first line captures the core purpose and categories, and the second adds output format and limitation. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides solid context: input type, output structure, tool capability, and limitation. It could mention that path is required and top_k is optional with a default, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (path, top_k) with no descriptions. The description explains the purpose of the tool but does not explain top_k's role or default value. While schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining the output structure, leaving top_k inferred but not explicit.

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 tool tags audio events using YAMNet, listing specific categories (Music, Speech, instruments, genres, SFX). It explicitly differentiates from mood analysis, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like audio_profile or transcribe.

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 provides clear context on when to use: for event/instrument/genre tagging on audio or video files. It explicitly states that YAMNet does not cover mood, guiding agents away from misuse. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context and sibling tools list imply differentiation.

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