audio_compare_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about alignment and loudness matching, which is useful, but does not disclose output format, interpretation of band deltas, or any edge cases. It meets the baseline but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (comparison of two files with optional max_seconds) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'band deltas' mean or how results should be interpreted, though the output schema may cover return structure. It is adequate but leaves room for more context.

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%, with clear descriptions for reference_path, candidate_path, and max_seconds. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (measure band deltas) and context (aligned, loudness-matched common overlap), which clearly implies a comparison of two audio files. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from generic analysis tools like audio_analyze_file or audio_analyze_masking, though it could be more explicit about the comparison nature.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_analyze_masking or audio_analyze_file. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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