analyze_audio_clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: execution happens locally on the MCP host, there is an external binary dependency, and two specific file classes fail with a message. It does not describe cost or latency for long files, which keeps it below 5.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core action and the analysis list before the dependency and failure caveats. The output enumeration is long, though each item is meaningful rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by naming the measurements returned alongside the clip's own settings (warping, gain, pitch). Prerequisites and known failure modes are included, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly out of scope.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single required parameter already documented with an example ('tracks/2/slots/0/clip'), the baseline is 3. The description's inline 'tracks/N/slots/M/clip' restates the same path shape without adding new semantics.

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?

Specific verb (Analyze) plus resource (source file of an audio clip) and an explicit enumeration of what is extracted: format metadata, LUFS, sample/true peak, RMS, six-band frequency profile. It also distinguishes itself from sibling read tools (get_properties, clip_action) by making clear it inspects the underlying source file rather than the clip's Live settings.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (ffmpeg and ffprobe must exist on the MCP host) and explicit exclusions (compressed Ableton .aif and REX files cannot be analyzed and report so). It does not name a sibling alternative for the unsupported formats, but the when/when-not conditions are unambiguous.

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