load_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions supported formats but does not disclose side effects, error handling, registry semantics, or what the operation returns beyond what the output schema might indicate.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the format list is concise.

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 tool is simple, and the output schema covers return values, but the lack of behavioral detail and edge-case guidance makes it not fully complete. It is adequate but with clear gaps in handling errors or registry state.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the format list; the baseline 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 verb 'load' and the resource 'audio file' with specific formats (mp3, wav, aac, ogg...), and the target 'registry'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_video and load_image.

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 implies usage for audio files and the sibling context makes alternatives obvious, but it lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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