compare_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it produces human-readable deltas, specifies the exact metrics computed, and notes that sub-perceptual changes are suppressed. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but for a read-only comparison tool, this is adequate.

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: the first densely lists the output content, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core function and has zero waste.

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 purpose, usage context, parameter relationship, and output characteristics. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured. It lacks file format or path accessibility details, but these are not essential for this tool's core function.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that path_b is relative to path_a ('b relative to a'), establishing the directional relationship between the two audio file parameters. This adds meaning beyond the bare titles 'Path A' and 'Path B'.

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 diffs two audio files into human-readable deltas, listing specific metrics (loudness, per-band level, brightness, punch, width, dynamics) plus a one-line headline. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_audio, which likely analyzes a single file.

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 context: 'This is the closed loop's progress meter: capture before/after a parameter move and compare to confirm the change helped.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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