audio_analyze_file

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond those annotations by specifying the single-render scope and flagging optional pitch analysis as a capability; this is useful behavioral context for a safe analysis tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and target, and no filler or repetition of the title. Every word adds signal.

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 a complete input schema and an output schema present, the high-level description plus the schema is enough to invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not situate the tool among the many audio-analysis siblings, but that gap is split with usage guidelines.

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%, so the schema already documents path, max_seconds, and include_pitch fully. The description's mention of 'optional pitch' maps to include_pitch, but it adds no semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Measure') and names the resource ('one render') plus the measured aspects (level, spectrum, dynamics, stereo, optional pitch), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling analyzers like audio_compare_files or audio_analyze_masking, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as audio_compare_files or audio_analyze_masking, and no exclusion criteria are given. The only implied context is that it analyzes a single rendered file, which is not enough to route an agent confidently among the audio analysis siblings.

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