analyze-audio-waveform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format (normalized amplitudes and peak times) and the WAV file requirement, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential errors or limitations, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output details, and the second sentence provides essential workflow context. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

The description covers the prerequisite (get-audio-info), input parameters via the schema, and the output format. It lacks details on edge cases or performance implications, but for a moderately simple analysis tool, it is sufficiently complete to guide an agent.

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%, with both filePath and numPoints clearly documented. The description adds context about the output but does not provide additional semantic meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already includes, 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 clearly states the tool's function: analyzing WAV audio to extract waveform amplitude data and detect peaks/transients. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-audio-info, which retrieves metadata rather than analyzing the waveform.

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 gives explicit usage guidance by instructing to first call get-audio-info to obtain the sourceFilePath, establishing a clear prerequisite and sequential workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so it falls slightly short of the top score.

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