AudacityMCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.21
- Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are clearly distinct (project_, track_, label_, effect_ prefixes group by domain). However, there is notable redundancy and overlap: label_delete_audio_at vs label_cut_regions vs label_delete_regions vs label_split_regions vs label_silence_regions all operate on labeled regions with similar purposes. Similarly, cursor_to_track_end and select_cursor_to_track_end, and multiple label export functions (label_export, label_export_audio_segments, project_export_labels) create ambiguity about which to select.
Naming Consistency4/5The naming follows a consistent verb_noun or category_verb pattern (project_, track_, label_, effect_, edit_, select_, cursor_, transport_, generate_, auto_). There are a few inconsistencies like 'normalize' and 'compressor' and 'limiter' and 'click_removal' that lack the effect_ prefix used by sibling tools, and 'get_noise_profile'/'noise_reduction' deviate from the pattern, but overall the convention is strong and predictable.
Tool Count1/5144 tools is an extreme number for an audio editor MCP server. While Audacity is feature-rich, this surface is far beyond what agents can reasonably navigate. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the seven separate auto_cleanup_* pipelines, the large effect_* family, and the transcription set). This count will cause selection difficulty and cognitive overload for any agent.
Completeness4/5The surface is quite comprehensive, covering project lifecycle (new/open/save/close/import/export), track management, selection, transport, editing, effects, generation, analysis, labeling, noise reduction, pipelines, and transcription. Minor gaps exist (no explicit record control for a specific track, no envelope editing beyond metadata, no undo/redo tools), but overall the domain is well covered for a full audio editing workflow.
Average 4/5 across 144 of 144 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 4 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 57 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It does not specify the file format (e.g., Audacity label format), whether existing files are overwritten, if parent directories must exist, or whether the operation is idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args:' section efficiently documents the single parameter. However, the docstring format is slightly technical rather than conversational, and extreme brevity leaves functional gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter structure, the description covers the basics but remains incomplete. It lacks essential context about the output file format (crucial for a text export tool) and does not clarify the scope of 'all labels' (project-wide vs. selected track) despite the availability of track-specific label tools in siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only title 'Path'). The description compensates by specifying the path must be 'Absolute' and for 'output', adding critical semantics missing from the schema. However, it omits file extension expectations or path validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports labels to a text file, specifying the action and output format. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `label_get_all` (which returns labels to the agent) or `project_export_labels`, leaving ambiguity about which export method to choose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this file-export approach versus retrieving labels directly via `label_get_all`, or how it compares to `project_export_labels`. No prerequisites (like directory existence) or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only adds the '0-based' indexing detail. It omits critical selection semantics: whether this replaces existing selections or adds to them, what happens if count exceeds available tracks, and whether the operation is idempotent or destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with no wasted words. The docstring-style 'Args:' format efficiently presents parameter information, though slightly mechanical. Every sentence earns its place by conveying either the core purpose or parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the minimum viable information (purpose + parameter meanings). However, given the complexity of selection operations in audio editing (interaction with existing selections, track visibility, bounds checking), it lacks necessary behavioral context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, making the Args section crucial. The description compensates effectively by documenting both parameters: 'track' is clarified as the 'Starting track index (0-based)' and 'count' as 'Number of tracks to select'. It adds the essential 0-based detail missing from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Select') and target ('tracks by index'), but fails to distinguish from similarly named sibling tools like 'track_select' and other selection tools (select_all, select_clip, etc.). An agent cannot determine when to use this multi-track selection versus single-track selection or region-based selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous alternatives (select_all, select_region, track_select, select_clip). Given the abundance of selection tools in the sibling list, the description should explicitly state the use case for index-based multi-track selection versus other selection paradigms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 identifies this as affecting the 'playback cursor' but omits critical details such as whether this stops active playback, what happens if the time exceeds project bounds, or whether the change is instantaneous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no filler content. The single-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by a brief Args section. While the 'Args:' formatting is slightly unconventional for MCP descriptions, it efficiently conveys the necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description meets minimum viability by explaining the basic function and parameter unit. However, it falls short of completeness due to the unresolved ambiguity with sibling cursor tools and lack of behavioral constraints for the transport system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying the unit for the 'time' parameter (seconds), which is essential information absent from the schema. However, it lacks additional context such as valid ranges, whether negative values are accepted, or if the value is absolute versus relative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (Set) and target (playback cursor position), providing immediate understanding of the tool's function. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool `cursor_set_position`, leaving ambiguity about which cursor control tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `cursor_set_position` or `cursor_to_project_start`. There are no prerequisites, constraints, or workflow context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects such as where the generated audio is placed (current track, new track, cursor position, selection), whether it overwrites existing content, or what the return value indicates. While parameter constraints (0-1 range, units) are documented, the essential side effects of the operation remain unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The docstring format with Args section is well-structured and efficiently organized. The content is front-loaded with the action statement followed by parameter details. Minor deduction because the opening statement 'Generate noise.' is overly terse and could clarify the audio domain context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter tool with no required parameters, the description adequately covers input semantics through the Args documentation. However, it lacks completeness regarding output behavior—specifically where the generated noise is inserted in the audio project—which is critical information for an audio editing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section comprehensively compensates by documenting all three parameters with valid enum values ('White', 'Pink', 'Brownian'), range constraints (0-1), units (seconds), and default values. This provides complete semantic meaning missing from the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Generate noise') but offers minimal differentiation from sibling generation tools like generate_tone or generate_chirp. While the verb and resource are identifiable, it lacks context about what distinguishes noise generation from other audio generation capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., when to use generate_noise vs generate_tone or importing audio). There are no stated prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but lacks critical details. It does not specify the text file format (CSV, space-separated, etc.), whether existing files are overwritten, potential disk space requirements for large exports, or what the function returns (success indicator, file path, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args section provides structured parameter documentation. The format is readable and contains no redundant or wasteful text, though the docstring-style 'Args:' format is slightly informal compared to integrated prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the parameters and basic purpose. However, it lacks explanation of return values, error handling (what happens if the path is invalid), and file format specifics—gaps that are significant given the tool performs a file system write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section compensates effectively by documenting both parameters: 'path' is described as an absolute path for the output file, and 'limit' is described as the maximum number of samples with the default value (100) explicitly stated. This provides sufficient semantic context missing from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports raw sample data from selected audio to a text file for analysis. It specifies the source (selected audio), action (export), format (text file), and content (raw sample data), which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_plot_spectrum or analyze_beat_finder that likely return computed analysis results rather than raw data exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., audio must be selected/loaded), when to prefer this over other analysis tools, or specific use cases where raw sample export is preferable to other analysis methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses the valid parameter range (1-128). It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, creates new clips, or modifies the existing selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Args:' section provides clear structure for parameter documentation, though the format is slightly informal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter effect tool without output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but lacks context about selection prerequisites and side effects that would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates effectively by explaining the semantic meaning ('Number of times to repeat'), valid constraints (1-128), and default value for the count parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (Repeat) and target (selected audio). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_duplicate' that may have similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this effect versus alternatives like 'edit_duplicate', nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that audio must be selected first, despite 'selected audio' implying it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'text file' but doesn't specify the format (TXT, CSV, etc.), whether existing files are overwritten, or if directories are created automatically.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with a clear two-part structure (summary sentence followed by Args documentation). No redundant text, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly informal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter export tool, but lacks information about return values or success/failure indicators (no output schema exists). Also missing file format specification details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well via the Args section, clarifying that `path` requires an absolute path and specifies its purpose as the destination for exported labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports labels to a text file using specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool `label_export`, which could cause confusion about which export tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `label_export` or `label_get_all`. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., whether labels must exist first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose whether playback blocks until completion, affects the cursor position, stops existing playback, or handles edge cases (end < start). Only states the obvious action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded purpose statement followed by Args section. Efficient at ~3 lines. The 'Args:' format is slightly informal but wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, covering basic operation and parameter semantics. However, lacks behavioral context expected for transport controls (side effects, playhead interaction, concurrency with recording) given zero annotation coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (titles only). The description compensates by specifying both parameters and their units ('Start time in seconds', 'End time in seconds'), which is critical semantic information missing from the schema. Does not provide constraints (e.g., non-negative values, end > start).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Play a specific time region' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from generic transport_play by specifying 'specific time region', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus transport_play (which plays from cursor) or select_region (which only selects). No mention of prerequisites like having audio loaded or valid time ranges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions creation of a 'new track,' it lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether original selection remains selected), undoability, error states if nothing is selected, or whether the operation is destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. Every term ('Duplicate,' 'selected audio,' 'new track') serves a specific semantic purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter editing operation without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core mechanism. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (selection required) and behavioral edge cases, leaving gaps that would require external knowledge or experimentation to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the rubric, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not mention parameters since none exist, and implies the prerequisite of having audio selected through the phrase 'selected audio.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Duplicate'), target ('selected audio'), and destination ('new track'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_copy (clipboard) and edit_paste by specifying immediate creation in a new track, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_copy/edit_paste, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that audio must be selected first). Users must infer the appropriate use case from the action description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Join' implies a modifying operation, the description fails to state that this is a destructive edit, whether it requires adjacent clips, or what happens to clip properties (e.g., which clip's metadata persists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core operation without filler, appropriate for a simple tool with no configuration options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits crucial context for an AI agent: explicit mention that clips must be pre-selected using select_* tools, behavior regarding non-adjacent clips, and whether the operation is reversible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring baseline, 0 params merits a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Join') and clearly identifies the resource ('selected clips') and outcome ('one clip'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'edit_disjoin' or clarify that this is the inverse of 'edit_split'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a prerequisite by mentioning 'selected clips' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'edit_disjoin', 'edit_split', or 'track_mix_and_render'. It does not state that clips must be selected first using a select_* tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions 'reconstructing peaks' and uses 'Attempt' to suggest limitations, it fails to state whether the operation is destructive, modifies the selection in-place, creates new audio, or requires a specific track selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately compact with a clear functional statement followed by a structured Args section. No sentences are wasted; the information is front-loaded and directly relevant to invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. However, it lacks critical contextual information about side effects, destructiveness, and integration with the audio editing workflow that would be necessary for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates effectively by documenting the single 'threshold' parameter with its semantics (percentage of max amplitude), valid range (0-100), and default value (95), which is sufficient for a one-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Attempt[s] to repair clipped (distorted) audio by reconstructing peaks,' providing a specific verb (repair) and resource (clipped audio). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'effect_repair' or clarify when to use this specific fix versus other correction methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when audio is clipped, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether to run analyze_find_clipping first), or when the repair attempt might fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the cursor/selection targeting behavior, but omits mutation details (e.g., whether it creates point vs. range labels), return values, error conditions, or side effects like label ID generation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no redundant sentences. The Args: format is slightly structural but acceptable. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, covering the essential operation and parameter. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should disclose what constitutes success/failure or the effect of adding duplicate labels.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by identifying 'text' as 'Label text' with its default value, providing basic semantic meaning. However, it lacks detail on text constraints, formatting, or the semantic difference between empty and non-empty labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the specific action (Add), resource (label), and location context (current cursor position or selection). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling `label_add_at` which presumably requires explicit time parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like `label_add_at` or `track_add_label`. While 'cursor position' implies interactive usage, the agent receives no explicit guidance on choosing between label addition methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the default empty value for text, but lacks disclosure on error handling (e.g., start > end), idempotency, what is returned, or whether the operation affects existing labels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with zero waste. The single-sentence purpose statement followed by the structured Args block front-loads critical information efficiently. No redundant or filler text present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple three-parameter tool, covering the basic inputs. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (success indicator, label ID, etc.) or error conditions. Gaps remain regarding the result of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully documents all three parameters: specifies units for temporal parameters ('in seconds'), describes the text parameter purpose, and notes the default value. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (add), resource (label), and scope (at a specific time range). The mention of 'time range' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'label_add' or 'track_add_label', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'label_add', 'track_add_label', or 'label_regular_intervals'. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., whether a project must be open or if time range validation applies).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and substring semantics, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool returns (label IDs? names? timestamps?), whether it returns all matches or just the first, or behavior when no match is found — significant gaps for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise — two short paragraphs plus an Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and use case. The Args/usage section is slightly redundant with the schema but acceptable given 0% schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a relatively simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the completeness bar is moderate. The description covers purpose and use case adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify the return format and matching behavior more thoroughly, and it doesn't mention return format or edge cases like empty results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'query' parameter. The description explains it as 'Text to search for within label text' in the Args section, which adds modest meaning. However, it doesn't clarify format requirements (e.g., exact substring, regex support) or return behavior tied to the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Find labels') with a specific criterion (text contains search string, case-insensitive). It distinguishes from sibling label tools by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with label_list or label_get_all which could also retrieve labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a useful use case ('locating a specific marker in a long recording without reading through every label') which conveys when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like label_list or label_get_all for when one wants all labels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether closing prompts to save unsaved changes (destructive potential), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to the project state after closure. This is a significant gap for a lifecycle management operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly one short sentence with zero redundancy. It is perfectly front-loaded with the action and target, wasting no words. Appropriate for a parameter-less tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the basic operation for a simple tool with no parameters or output schema, it is incomplete regarding safety-critical context. Given that closing a project can result in data loss if unsaved, and given the presence of project_save siblings, the description should mention save-prompting behavior or data-loss risk.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage (trivially). The baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond what the empty schema indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb (Close) and resource (current Audacity project). It adequately distinguishes from siblings like project_open, project_save, and project_new by specifying 'current' and the close operation. However, it lacks specificity on whether this closes the window, clears memory, or ends the session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use project_save first). It fails to mention prerequisites like saving unsaved changes or the consequences of closing with unsaved work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions target is 'current project' but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates new tracks, overwrites existing data, or is idempotent) or error conditions (e.g., invalid file format handling).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficient two-part structure: action statement followed by Args block. No redundant text; every line conveys specific information about the operation or parameter requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter import tool, covering the basic operation and parameter format. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, it omits important behavioral context about how the MIDI data is integrated (e.g., track creation) that would help an agent predict project state changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section specifies 'Absolute path' (critical constraint) and valid file extensions (.mid, .midi), adding essential validation context missing from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Import') and resource ('MIDI file') with target context ('current project'). The file extensions (.mid, .midi) help specify the resource type. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling `project_import_audio`, though the name implies this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides file extensions (.mid, .midi) which implicitly guide usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus `project_import_audio` or prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it notes the project is 'empty', it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: what happens to the current project (is it closed?), whether unsaved changes are lost, or if the operation can fail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with no waste. Every word earns its place: 'Create' (action), 'new empty' (state), 'Audacity project' (domain).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a zero-parameter tool but missing important behavioral context regarding side effects on current project state. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should have addressed what happens to existing work.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters exist (schema is empty object). Per guidelines, 0 params warrants baseline score of 4. No parameter semantic information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb 'Create' and resource 'Audacity project'. The word 'empty' adds useful scope, implying no initial content/tracks. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'project_open' or 'project_save_as'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'project_open' (existing projects) or 'project_save_as' (saving current as new). No mention of prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 fails to specify whether this replaces existing selections or adds to them, what occurs when no clip is under the cursor, or whether the operation is idempotent. The basic action is stated but edge cases and side effects are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the target resource and spatial constraint ('under the cursor').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately conveys the core operation. However, given the rich ecosystem of sibling selection tools and the ambiguity around selection behavior (replace vs. add), the description leaves meaningful gaps regarding operational context and error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. No additional semantic clarification is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Select') and target ('the clip under the cursor'), specifying scope at the clip level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling selection tools like select_all, select_region, or select_tracks, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 the five other selection-related siblings (select_all, select_region, select_tracks, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the cursor to be positioned over a clip, or what happens if no clip exists at the cursor location.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is stateful (toggles between pause/play), what happens to the cursor/playback position when paused, or whether it can be invoked when already paused. 'Toggle' implies bidirectional behavior but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at six words with zero redundancy. The single sentence front-loads the action ('Toggle pause') and immediately qualifies the context ('during playback or recording'), earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter transport tool without output schema, the description identifies the core function adequately. However, it lacks behavioral nuance (toggle semantics, state prerequisites) that would be necessary for an agent to predict side effects or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object), establishing baseline 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter semantic information is required or provided in the description, which is appropriate for a simple transport control.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Toggle pause') and identifies the resource context ('playback or recording'), distinguishing it from sibling transport controls like transport_play or transport_stop. However, it leaves ambiguity whether this exclusively pauses or also resumes playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus transport_stop (which keeps vs resets position) or how it interacts with transport_play for resuming. The agent cannot determine if this is the correct tool for temporarily halting versus stopping completely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states that playback/recording stops, it omits critical behavioral details such as cursor position behavior (whether it resets to start or remains at stop position) and whether this is a safe, non-destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only four words. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but leaves gaps regarding transport state management. It should mention cursor behavior post-stop or clarify the difference between stopping and pausing, especially given the existence of transport_pause as a sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the evaluation rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description implies no parameters are needed, which aligns with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Stop') and the target resources ('playback or recording'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like transport_play and transport_record by specifying the cessation action, though it could explicitly differentiate from transport_pause.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention the distinction between stop (complete cessation) and transport_pause (temporary halt), or whether this should be used after transport_record versus transport_play.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. While it explains curve behavior (exponential/logarithmic), it omits critical operational context: whether the effect is destructive, requires a selection, or how it handles edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a single purpose sentence followed by an Args block. No words are wasted, though the Args documentation format is slightly informal relative to typical schema-centric descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the parameter semantics but lacks operational completeness for an audio effect tool. It omits whether the tool modifies audio in-place, requires a time selection, or returns status information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage (only titles present), the description excellently compensates by fully documenting both parameters: fade_type enumerates the 0/1 values with meanings and default, and curve explains the numeric range interpretation (positive/negative) and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies an 'adjustable fade with curve control,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish this from siblings like effect_fade_in and effect_fade_out, which this tool likely generalizes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the simpler effect_fade_in/out alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an audio selection before application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the effect is destructive, applies to the current selection vs. entire track, or what happens to the audio pipeline. Only parameter ranges are documented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args block. No redundant filler. The formatting is efficient, though the Args section repeats information that ideally belongs in the schema (necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple three-parameter effect tool with no output schema, as it fully documents the inputs. However, it lacks operational context (e.g., selection requirements, track targeting) that would be necessary for correct invocation in a complex audio editing workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Documents all three parameters (bass, treble, gain) with units (dB), valid ranges (-30 to 30), and default values (0), adding essential semantic information completely absent from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Adjust bass and treble frequencies') and characterizes the tool as a 'simple tonal shaping tool,' which hints at its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like effect_equalization or high/low pass filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_equalization, effect_high_pass_filter, or effect_low_pass_filter. No prerequisites (e.g., audio selection requirements) are mentioned despite sibling tools for selection and cursor management existing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the effect applies to 'selected audio' (implying destructive, in-place modification), but fails to disclose whether the operation is reversible, if it requires specific track types, or performance characteristics like real-time vs. rendered processing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with a clear action statement followed by structured parameter documentation. The Args format, while informal, efficiently delivers necessary parameter semantics without redundancy given the schema's lack of descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic contract but leaves gaps. It doesn't enumerate valid distortion_type values, explain what 'Hard Clipping' means, or describe error states (e.g., no selection). It meets minimum viability but lacks richness for robust agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates effectively by documenting both parameters with types, valid ranges (-100 to 0 for threshold), and default values. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema property names, though it omits enumeration values for distortion_type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Apply), resource (distortion effect), and target (selected audio). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling effect tools (effect_reverb, effect_echo, etc.), leaving the agent to infer when distortion is appropriate versus other modifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites such as requiring an active audio selection. The phrase 'selected audio' implies a selection must exist, but doesn't explicitly warn about failure conditions or suggest alternatives like effect_clip_fix for different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly notes the operation applies to 'selected audio' and documents parameter constraints (odd number range for length). However, it fails to state whether this is a destructive modification, if it requires specific track permissions, or what happens if no audio is selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a docstring-style format with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args section. This structure efficiently packs parameter documentation into the description field. While the Args section consumes multiple lines, every line provides necessary constraint information not present in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter audio effect with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basics of what the tool does and its parameter requirements. However, it lacks completeness regarding available EQ presets (is 'Default' the only option?), the specific audio processing algorithm used, and whether the effect is applied destructively or non-destructively to the project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It successfully adds semantic meaning for both parameters: curve_name is identified as an 'EQ preset curve' with a default value, and length is described as 'Filter length' with critical validation constraints (odd number, 21-8191). It could further improve by listing available preset names or explaining the quality/performance tradeoff of the length parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies an 'EQ curve' (equalization) to selected audio, identifying the verb (Apply) and target resource. However, it uses domain jargon ('EQ' instead of 'equalization') and does not explicitly differentiate this curve-based approach from sibling parametric EQ tools like effect_bass_and_treble or effect_high_pass_filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternative filtering or EQ effects in the sibling list (e.g., effect_bass_and_treble, effect_notch_filter). There is no mention of prerequisites such as requiring an audio selection first, though 'selected audio' is mentioned implying this requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Documents parameter constraints (ranges, defaults) but fails to disclose whether operation is destructive, what happens if no audio is selected, or undo/reversibility characteristics. Missing critical behavioral context for an audio modification tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses an Args block format that is information-dense with zero fluff. Slightly unconventional structure for MCP descriptions (typically more prose-oriented), but every line earns its place by documenting parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive parameter documentation satisfies basic requirements, but given zero annotations and no output schema, the description lacks operational context: no error handling details, no mention of destructive vs non-destructive behavior, and no return value information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with precise semantics: stages (2-24, even only), dry_wet (0=dry, 255=wet), frequency (LFO frequency in Hz), phase (degrees), depth (0-255), and feedback (percentage -100 to 100). All defaults provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Apply) and target (phaser effect to selected audio). Distinguishes from siblings like effect_echo or effect_reverb by naming the specific effect type, though it doesn't explain the musical characteristics that differentiate phaser from similar modulation effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies audio must be selected via 'selected audio' phrase, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., minimum selection length), and no comparison to similar modulation effects like effect_tremolo or effect_wahwah.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'selected audio' implying selection-based operation, and documents parameter ranges/defaults. However, it fails to disclose whether this is a destructive operation (modifies audio in place), whether it creates a new track, or if it requires specific preconditions like a noise profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized Args block. While embedding parameter documentation in the description text is less ideal than rich schema descriptions, it is necessary given the schema deficiencies. No sentences are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter audio effect with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameters adequately but lacks workflow context. It omits critical information such as whether the effect is applied destructively, if the operation can be undone, or what happens when invoked without a selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section in the description provides essential compensation by documenting all 10 parameters with units (ms, dB, percentage) and default values. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could explain audio-specific concepts like 'wet' vs 'dry' signals for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Apply), resource (reverb effect), and target (selected audio). It distinguishes this from analysis tools (analyze_*) and editing tools (edit_*) in the sibling list. However, it does not differentiate from similar effect siblings like effect_echo or effect_phaser regarding when to use reverb specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_echo or effect_delay, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring audio to be selected first). The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses parameter constraints (frequency range 1-20000 Hz, amplitude 0-1) and valid waveform values, but omits operational behavior: where the generated audio goes (cursor position? new track? returned as file?), whether it replaces a selection, or side effects on the project state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded single sentence followed by structured Args section. No redundant text; every line conveys parameter constraints or defaults. Efficient format for a 4-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Parameter documentation is complete, but missing critical operational context for a generation tool: destination of the generated audio (inserted at cursor, new track, or returned as data). Without output schema or annotations, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about tool effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by documenting all 4 parameters with types, valid ranges (e.g., waveform enum values, frequency bounds), units (Hz, seconds), and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Generate a tone signal' which provides a clear verb and resource, but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like generate_chirp (frequency-sweeping tone) or generate_dtmf (dual-tone). No indication that this produces a constant-frequency tone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_chirp, generate_noise, or generate_dtmf. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether a project must be open).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but fails to specify critical mutation details: whether imported labels append to or replace existing labels, what file format is expected (Audacity label format, CSV, etc.), or error handling behavior for invalid files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter documentation. While concise, it is overly terse given the missing behavioral and format specifications that would be necessary for safe invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a data import tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the expected file format (critical for an import operation) and the merge behavior with existing labels. Given the presence of complementary sibling tools (label_export), the lack of format specification creates significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage (only 'title': 'Path' in schema), the Args section provides essential semantic meaning by specifying 'Absolute path to the labels text file'. This adds the 'absolute' constraint and 'labels text file' context missing from the schema, though it omits file format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Import') and resource ('labels') with source context ('from a text file'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like label_export, label_add, or label_get_all by specifying the bulk import nature from external files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., label_add for single labels), nor does it mention prerequisites like file existence requirements or format constraints. No 'when-not' or alternative guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds critical context by listing valid 'info_type' values (Tracks, Clips, Envelopes, Labels, Boxes, Commands) which the schema lacks as enums. It also implies statefulness by referencing 'current project'. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no project is open, or what data structure is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with no wasted words, using a standard Python docstring format (description + Args). However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, the extreme brevity leaves important behavioral gaps that another sentence could address.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable. However, given the confusing sibling 'track_get_info' and lack of output schema, it should explain the scope of returned data (e.g., whether it returns metadata vs. audio data) and error conditions. The current description leaves significant operational ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting the valid string values for 'info_type' in the Args section. While it doesn't explain what 'Boxes' or 'Commands' specifically return, providing the enumerated values is essential for correct parameter usage where the schema fails to constrain inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current project'), establishing a clear purpose. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'track_get_info', which could confuse the agent about whether to get track info from this project-level tool or the track-specific one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_get_info', nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project). The description assumes context without stating conditions for successful invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It fails to clarify whether this operation is destructive (deleting source tracks), modifies the existing project structure, or requires save confirmation. 'Mix and render' implies permanence but doesn't specify scope of changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the operation, second states the prerequisite. Efficiently front-loaded with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive audio editing operation with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks critical safety context. It omits whether original tracks are preserved, where the rendered track appears, and success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, meeting the baseline of 4 per evaluation rules. The prerequisite 'Select tracks first' implies pre-conditions are handled via track selection state rather than parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (mix and render) and outcome (single track). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'track_mix_and_render_to_new', which likely creates a new track rather than replacing selected tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Select tracks first' establishes a prerequisite, but there's no guidance on when to use this versus 'track_mix_and_render_to_new' or what happens if tracks aren't selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the fade is destructive (modifies underlying audio), the duration/curve of the fade, or what occurs if no region is selected. The term 'Apply' suggests mutation but lacks explicit confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and target, while the second provides the necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter audio effect tool, the description meets minimum viability by stating the effect type and selection prerequisite. However, given the rich ecosystem of similar fade tools (fade_in, studio_fade_out, adjustable_fade), the omission of distinguishing characteristics (fade curve, duration control, specific use cases) leaves significant contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies through the prerequisite instruction that audio selection happens via UI state rather than function arguments, which aligns with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Apply a fade-out') and target ('selected audio'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like effect_studio_fade_out or effect_adjustable_fade, leaving ambiguity about which specific fade algorithm or behavior is used.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a critical prerequisite ('Select the region to fade first'), implying this tool operates on the current UI selection rather than accepting parameters. However, it fails to specify when to choose this over alternatives like effect_studio_fade_out or effect_fade_in, or what constitutes valid selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides minimal behavioral context. It notes the 0-based indexing for the track parameter (valuable), but fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, reversible, or what occurs with invalid track indices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. Every line earns its place; there is no redundant or wasted text while still conveying the necessary parameter documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter state-toggle tool without output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameters but lacks completeness regarding error handling, boundary conditions (invalid track indices), or the relationship to track-level versus project-level mute operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section: clarifying that track is a 0-based index and explaining the boolean semantics of mute (True=mute, False=unmute). This adds essential meaning missing from the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool mutes or unmutes a track using specific verbs and identifies the resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this single-track operation from sibling tools like track_mute_all or track_unmute_all, which could cause selection ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like track_mute_all (for bulk operations) or track_set_properties. The agent receives no signals about prerequisites or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to specify whether this operation is destructive (modifies the original track), whether it creates a new mono track alongside the stereo one, or if it is reversible via undo. The instruction to select first is the only behavioral guidance provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first states the function; the second states the prerequisite. Both sentences earn their place in a front-loaded structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but remains incomplete regarding critical audio-editing context (destructive vs. non-destructive, channel mixing behavior, track replacement semantics) that would help an agent predict side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per guidelines. The description compensates slightly by referencing the implicit parameter (the selected track) with the instruction to 'Select the track first,' though it does not describe the selection mechanism further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (convert), resource (selected stereo track), and output format (mono). It distinguishes from sibling 'track_add_mono' by implying modification of an existing track rather than creating a new one, though it could explicitly clarify whether this modifies in-place or creates a new track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the critical prerequisite 'Select the track first,' which is essential for this selection-based tool. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'track_mix_and_render' or how it interacts with track selection states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully adds the unit context ('seconds') which is critical behavioral information not in the schema. However, it lacks disclosure about safety (though implied non-destructive), valid ranges, or interaction with the transport state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the action statement first, followed by an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, simple operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the parameter unit and the core action, which is adequate for a cursor positioning tool, though edge case behavior (e.g., negative values) is not specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (schema only provides 'title': 'Time' and type), the description compensates by documenting the unit ('Position in seconds'). This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it could additionally specify valid ranges or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Move the cursor to a specific time position', providing a specific verb (Move) and resource (cursor). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like cursor_to_project_end by emphasizing 'specific time position' rather than predefined locations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from transport_set_cursor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_to_project_end, cursor_to_track_start, or transport_set_cursor. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'replace' implies mutation, the description fails to disclose destructiveness, whether the operation affects clip length, if it's reversible via undo, or how it interacts with the cursor/selection state post-operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits critical context like selection requirements (though implied) and behavioral side effects. Adequate but minimal for an audio editing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description implies reliance on a pre-existing selection ('selected audio'), which provides necessary context for the empty parameter list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (replace), resource (selected audio), and result (silence). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like edit_delete (removal without preserving duration), edit_cut (clipboard operation), and truncate_silence (removes silence vs. creating it).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus edit_delete (which likely removes audio entirely) or truncate_silence (which removes silence rather than creating it). No mention of prerequisites like requiring an active selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but only mentions it applies to 'selected audio'. It fails to state whether this is destructive (modifies in place), what happens if no audio is selected, or what the wahwah effect actually sounds like (modulated filter sweep).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an Args section. While the Args format is informal for MCP (belongs in schema), it's necessary here due to zero schema coverage. No redundant or wasteful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter audio effect with no output schema, the description adequately covers the parameters but leaves gaps in behavioral context. It should clarify prerequisites (active selection required), side effects (destructive modification), and musical use cases given the complexity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description excellently compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with units (Hz, degrees), valid ranges (0.1-4.0, 0-360), and default values (1.5, 0, 70, 2.5, 30). This is critical since the schema provides no descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Apply wahwah effect to the selected audio' with a specific verb (Apply), resource (wahwah effect), and target (selected audio). It distinguishes itself from siblings like effect_phaser or effect_tremolo by specifying the unique wahwah effect type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use wahwah versus similar modulation effects (effect_phaser, effect_tremolo), no prerequisites (e.g., audio must be selected first), and no warnings about destructive editing. It merely states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but omits crucial behavioral context: it does not specify where the generated audio is placed (current track at cursor? new track? returned as data?), whether it overwrites existing content, or file format details. It does document parameter ranges (0-1, 0-100) which provides some behavioral constraint information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by an Args block. Every element earns its place. The dense formatting of the Args section is slightly informal but remains readable. No redundant or wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a generation tool with no output schema, the description should specify the disposition of the generated audio (insertion point, track behavior). While parameter documentation is complete, the missing 'what happens to the output' context represents a significant gap for an audio editing tool with project/track state implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by documenting all 4 parameters in the Args block: sequence (valid characters 0-9, A-D, *, #), duty_cycle (percentage semantics), amplitude (0-1 scale), and duration (seconds unit). This fully compensates for the schema deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the specific action 'Generate' and resource 'DTMF (telephone) tones', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_tone, generate_chirp, and generate_noise. The parenthetical '(telephone)' adds helpful domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives like generate_tone, or when DTMF tones are appropriate (e.g., automated phone system testing vs. musical applications). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies the selection scope (tracks + time range) but omits whether this replaces existing selections, requires an open project, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, efficient sentences with zero redundancy. Every clause adds necessary information about the selection scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior for invocation. It could be improved by mentioning whether it replaces existing selections, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (select) and target (all audio in all tracks). It distinguishes scope from siblings like select_tracks by specifying it covers 'both tracks and time range', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as select_region, select_clip, or select_none. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. While it defines the selection range, it fails to clarify whether this replaces existing selections or adds to them, whether the cursor moves to the end, or how multi-track contexts are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The core action and scope are front-loaded and immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, it lacks behavioral context (selection replacement behavior, cursor final position) that would be necessary for robust agent decision-making without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. Per the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a 4 as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Select') and precise scope ('from the current cursor position to the end of the track'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cursor_to_track_end (movement only), select_all (full project), and select_region (arbitrary bounds).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like select_all, select_region, or select_clip. No explicit when/when-not scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies mutation, the description fails to specify where the track is inserted (end of project, after selection), whether the new track becomes selected, or if the operation is undoable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is immediately front-loaded with the action and target resource, delivering maximum information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, it lacks contextual details about track positioning and selection state that would be helpful for an agent to predict the resulting project state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Add' with the clear resource 'stereo audio track' and explicitly qualifies it as 'stereo', distinguishing it from siblings track_add_mono and track_add_label. It clearly communicates the tool's exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (track_add_mono), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an open project. There are no when/when-not conditions specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it mentions the operation applies to 'selected audio,' it fails to state whether the operation is destructive (modifies source), reversible, or what occurs if no silence meets the threshold. Critical safety/behavioral context for an audio editing operation is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The structure is logical with the purpose statement front-loaded, followed by the necessary Args documentation. While including defaults in the description text is slightly redundant with the schema's default values, it improves readability given the schema's lack of descriptions. No extraneous sentences are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 5-parameter complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers parameter meanings but leaves gaps regarding the operation's side effects, return behavior, and success/failure conditions. It mentions 'selected audio' but doesn't confirm if the selection must be pre-existing or if the tool handles selection errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (only titles present), the Args section in the description provides essential semantic meaning for all 5 parameters, explaining concepts like 'Volume below this is considered silence' for threshold_db and conditional usage for compress_percent. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Truncate[s] or compress[es] silence in the selected audio' with specific verbs and identifies the target resource (silence/dead air). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'edit_silence', which could cause confusion about which to use for silence manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Great for removing dead air' provides implied context for when to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidelines on when to choose 'Truncate' versus 'Compress' actions, or prerequisites like requiring an active audio selection before invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions 'selected audio' implying a selection requirement, it fails to clarify whether the effect is destructive (modifies in-place), what happens if no audio is selected, or details about the processing behavior beyond the parameter definitions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section documenting parameters. Every sentence serves a function; there is no redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter audio effect tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the parameter semantics and basic purpose. However, it lacks usage context (when to prefer echo over reverb) and operational details (error handling, selection requirements) that would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters with types ('seconds', 'factor'), valid ranges ('0-1'), semantic meaning ('lower = faster decay'), and default values ('Default: 0.5') for each.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Apply echo effect') and target ('selected audio'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like effect_reverb or effect_phaser through the specific 'echo' terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., effect_reverb for reverberation), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active audio selection before invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful behavioral constraints (valid ranges: 30-300 BPM, 1-1000 bars) but fails to disclose critical operational semantics: whether the track is added to the current project, returned as audio data, or replaces existing content. It also omits safety/profile information (e.g., non-destructive vs. destructive).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or wasted text. The parameter documentation is concise yet complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While all parameters are documented, the description lacks essential context for a generation tool: it does not explain what happens to the generated track (e.g., 'adds a new track to the current project'), mention output format, or specify prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, this operational gap is significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage (only titles present), the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters with types, valid ranges (tempo 30-300, beats_per_bar 1-32), allowed values (rhythm_pattern: Uniform/Swing), and defaults. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Generate[s] a click/rhythm track' using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_tone or generate_noise by specifying 'click/rhythm' rather than generic audio generation, though it could explicitly mention this creates a metronome-style guide track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project) or when not to use it. Despite having numerous sibling generation tools, no comparative context is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that a 'new track' is created, which is critical state-change information. However, it omits error handling (invalid paths, unsupported formats), idempotency characteristics, or return value details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Highly efficient two-sentence description followed by structured Args documentation. Front-loaded with core purpose; no filler text. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool, covering the essential action and parameter semantics. However, given the absence of annotations, output schema, and error handling documentation, the description leaves gaps regarding failure modes and success indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Clarifies that 'path' requires an 'Absolute path' and provides concrete format examples (wav, mp3, ogg, flac). Does not specify validation rules or encoding requirements, preventing a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Import') and resource ('audio file') with clear side effect ('Creates a new track'). Distinguishes from sibling 'project_import_midi' implicitly through listed audio formats (wav, mp3, etc.), though explicit contrast would strengthen this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage guidance through the enumeration of supported audio formats, signaling when to use this tool (for wav/mp3/etc.). However, lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or direct comparison to 'project_import_midi' despite the clear sibling relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose whether operation is destructive (modifies audio data), whether quality loss occurs, or what the return value indicates. Only constraint documented is 'Must be > 0' for the rate parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. First sentence establishes purpose; second sentence (via Args format) documents the single parameter with examples. No redundant or wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, but lacks disclosure of destructive behavior and return semantics. Given zero annotations, should explicitly state that this modifies the track's underlying audio data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the unit (Hz), providing concrete examples (44100, 48000, 96000), and stating the constraint (> 0). Adds essential context missing from schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states specific verb 'Resample' with clear resource 'selected track' and outcome 'new sample rate'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling effect_change_speed and track_set_properties by specifying the sample rate conversion operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like effect_change_speed (which changes perceived speed) or when resampling is appropriate. No mention of prerequisites like requiring a track selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It adds valuable constraint information (gain range -36 to 36, pan range -1.0 to 1.0) not present in schema, but omits safety profile (destructive vs reversible), return behavior, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficient Args-list format with zero redundancy. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by dense parameter specifications. Slightly technical formatting but appropriately sized for the information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with complex optional semantics (union types with null) and no output schema, description successfully documents all inputs. Minor gap regarding default behaviors or partial update semantics (setting only some properties).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Perfect compensation for 0% schema coverage. Documents all 6 parameters with precise semantics: track indexing (0-based), gain units (dB), pan mapping (-1.0=left to 1.0=right), and boolean flags for mute/solo.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Set properties') and target resource ('track by index'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'track_mute' or 'track_get_info' that handle specific single properties or read operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this multi-property setter versus single-purpose siblings like 'track_mute', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., track must exist) or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 successfully communicates the selection prerequisite but fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), return value format, or side effects. 'Analyze' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, prerequisite warning, and use case context. Each sentence earns its place and is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless analysis tool without output schema, the description is reasonably complete, covering purpose, prerequisites, and domain. Minor gap: does not describe what analysis results are returned (e.g., decibel difference, ratio values).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description adds value by implicitly documenting the tool's dependency on application state (the selected region) via 'Select a region first,' which compensates for the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes 'contrast between foreground and background audio' with a specific domain (WCAG accessibility). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analysis tools like analyze_beat_finder or analyze_find_clipping, relying on the agent to infer the distinction from the resource name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a critical prerequisite ('Select a region first') and a specific use case (WCAG compliance checking). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other analysis tools (e.g., when to choose this over auto_analyze_audio) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. While it specifies the location ('cursor position'), it fails to explain critical audio-editing semantics: whether the operation inserts (shifting existing audio) or overwrites, how it interacts with track selections, or error handling for empty clipboards.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is tightly constructed with zero waste: 'Paste' (action), 'audio' (object), 'from clipboard' (source), 'at the cursor position' (location). Every word earns its place and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation adequately. However, given this is a mutation operation in an audio editor, it lacks important context about insertion vs. overwrite behavior and side effects on project state that would be necessary for safe agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately mentions the implicit data source (clipboard) and target location (cursor position), adding necessary context that compensates for the empty parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Paste'), clear resource ('audio from clipboard'), and precise location ('at the cursor position'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like edit_copy, edit_cut, and edit_duplicate by explicitly mentioning the clipboard mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies prerequisites (clipboard must contain audio), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_duplicate, nor does it warn about error conditions (empty clipboard). Workflow guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 correctly identifies the destructive nature of the operation ('delete'), but lacks crucial details such as undoability, whether the operation requires an existing selection to function, or side effects on the project state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place: 'Trim audio outside the selection' defines the operation, and the parenthetical removes ambiguity without adding fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core operation is described, the description omits critical contextual information given the lack of annotations and output schema: specifically, that a selection must exist beforehand (prerequisite) and what happens if invoked without one. For a destructive editing tool, this gap is significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description adequately compensates by explaining the implicit input (the current selection) that the tool operates upon, though no additional parameter-level semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Trim'), resource ('audio'), and scope ('outside the selection'), with the parenthetical '(delete everything except selected region)' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like edit_delete or edit_cut which operate on the selection itself rather than preserving it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use edit_trim vs edit_delete or edit_cut), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active selection before invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the detection logic and track ordering requirements, but fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive (modifies audio data), creates automation envelopes, or is reversible via undo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose first, followed by workflow and parameters. While the Args section is lengthy, this verbosity is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions; no sentences are redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers input parameters and setup requirements for this 7-parameter tool, but leaves gaps regarding execution results (return values, success indicators, or modified track state) given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section comprehensively compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with semantic meaning (e.g., 'How much to reduce volume'), valid ranges (-24 to 0), units (dB, seconds), and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'automatically reduce[s] volume when audio is detected on another track,' specifying the sidechain ducking behavior. The examples (narration over music) help distinguish it from generic volume effects like effect_amplify or effect_fade_out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides specific workflow prerequisites ('Place the control track... above the track to duck,' 'Select the track... before running') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like effect_crossfade_tracks or manual envelope editing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only minimally satisfies it. While it mentions the scope ('selected audio'), it fails to state whether the operation is destructive (modifies audio in place), whether it can be undone, or if it creates new tracks—critical information for audio editing tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence purpose statement followed by a well-organized Args block. No sentences are wasted, though the docstring format (Args:) is slightly less integrated than pure prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the three-parameter input and lack of output schema, the description adequately documents parameters but leaves behavioral gaps. For a destructive audio operation with no annotations, it should explicitly state the mutation nature and any selection requirements rather than just implying them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantics for all three parameters: frequency includes range (1-1000) and unit (Hz), depth specifies percentage range (0-100), and waveform maps integer values to semantic types (Sine, Triangle, etc.).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Apply tremolo'), defines it parenthetically as 'volume oscillation', and identifies the target ('selected audio'). This effectively distinguishes it from the numerous sibling effect tools (effect_echo, effect_reverb, etc.) by specifying the exact audio processing technique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies prerequisites by referencing 'selected audio', indicating a selection must exist. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose tremolo over similar modulation effects (like effect_phaser or effect_wahwah) or whether it applies to the whole track when partially selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the batch validation behavior (all validated before sending to Audacity) and failure semantics (bad item fails whole call). This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded purpose ('Add many labels at once'), then a concise format spec, then the important atomicity caveat. No wasted sentences. The Args block is redundant with the schema but the item structure detail justifies its inclusion given the schema is empty.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch-add tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input format, defaults, validation behavior, and failure semantics. Slightly more could be said about return value or what happens on partial failure, but the atomicity disclosure largely covers that. Well-suited for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the item schema is just 'additionalProperties: true' with no property definitions, so the schema provides no meaning. The description compensates by documenting the structure {start, end optional, text optional} with defaults, which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe units (seconds confirmed), boundaries, or validation rules in detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Add many labels at once') with a specific behavior (batch add of a whole marker list). Distinguishes from siblings like label_add by emphasizing the batch nature, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies batch use for adding multiple labels at once, and mentions the atomicity behavior (whole call fails vs half-written list). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over label_add (single) or label_add_at, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that labels 'stay where they are' (i.e., labels are preserved), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is destructive to existing clip splits, whether it's reversible, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: the operation, the inverse relationship, and the operational prerequisites. Compact and readable, though the passive phrasing 'Acts on labeled regions' and 'The labels themselves stay where they are' could be tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and prerequisites. However, given that no annotations exist, there's no safety/reversibility information. Given the complexity of audio editing and the large sibling set (many other label and edit tools like edit_join, label_cut_regions, label_delete_regions), the description could clarify what distinguishes this from edit_join or label_delete_regions' behaviors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage (no properties at all), the description correctly contains no parameter-specific information. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately focuses on operational context (selection prerequisites) rather than parameters that don't exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: joining audio clips across labeled regions, with a specific verb ('Join') and resource ('audio clips across every labeled region'). It also explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of label_split_regions, one of its siblings, which aids disambiguation. However, it could be slightly clearer that the operation merges segments per label rather than across all labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides specific usage context: it acts on labeled regions within the current selection on selected audio tracks, and explicitly instructs to select audio tracks and time range first ('select the audio tracks and time range first'). It names the inverse sibling tool label_split_regions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives beyond the inverse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but omits critical behavioral context: what happens to currently open projects, whether this is destructive/replacing, error handling for missing files, or return value format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with zero waste; front-loaded purpose statement followed by Args documentation. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool but has clear gaps regarding state management side effects and error conditions that would help sequence this tool correctly in multi-step workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by specifying 'Absolute path' (crucial constraint) and '.aup3' format requirement that the schema's 'Path' title alone doesn't convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Open' with clear resource 'Audacity project file (.aup3)', distinguishing it from siblings like project_import_audio (which handles media files) and project_new.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The .aup3 format specification implicitly guides usage toward existing project files rather than audio imports, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like project_new or project_import_audio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation through 'Add' but fails to specify side effects like track positioning (end vs. insertion point), selection state changes, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with zero waste: 'Add' (action), 'new' (state), 'mono' (type distinction), 'audio track' (resource), and 'project' (scope) all earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic action but omits operational details—such as insertion position relative to existing tracks or whether the new track becomes selected—that would aid sequential tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, 0 params establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('mono audio track'), and scope ('to the project'). The inclusion of 'mono' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'track_add_stereo' and 'track_add_label'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the 'mono' designation implicitly guides selection over 'track_add_stereo', the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., 'use this for single-channel audio sources' or 'requires an open project').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the cursor moves but omits prerequisites (e.g., requires a selected track?), side effects on playback position, and safety characteristics (non-destructive).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is efficiently front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple cursor navigation tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate for correct invocation, though it could clarify edge case behavior when no track is selected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, warranting the baseline score of 4. No parameter description is needed given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb (Move), resource (cursor), and destination (end of selected track), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cursor_to_track_start, cursor_to_project_end, and select_cursor_to_track_end.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_to_project_end or the critically different select_cursor_to_track_end (which selects audio rather than moving the playhead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 explains the selection-based input model but omits crucial details: whether the operation is destructive, what happens to the underlying audio data (volume curves, overlap handling), or any side effects on track structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two highly efficient sentences with zero waste. The first establishes purpose, the second provides operational prerequisites. Every word earns its place in guiding the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and explicit parameters, the description adequately covers the manual workflow required. However, for an audio effect tool, it should disclose whether changes are reversible or destructive, and the nature of the crossfade algorithm applied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (empty object), establishing a baseline of 4. The description implicitly documents the implicit inputs (the two selected overlapping tracks) and their required state, adding necessary context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Crossfade') and target resource ('two overlapping tracks'), distinguishing it from sibling 'effect_crossfade_clips' by specifying the track-level scope. It effectively communicates the core function in the first sentence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides explicit prerequisites ('Align the tracks so they overlap, select both'), functioning as usage guidelines for this stateful tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'effect_crossfade_clips' or warnings about requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the track starts 'empty' (behavioral state), but lacks information about return values, side effects, idempotency, or what happens when called multiple times.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 8-word sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and target, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no complex output), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could be improved by clarifying that label tracks are for text/markup annotations rather than audio, given the audio-focused sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (vacuously true). Per rubric guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. No parameter semantic information is needed or provided in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') with clear resource ('empty label track') and scope ('to the project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like track_add_mono/track_add_stereo (audio tracks) and label_add (adding labels to existing tracks) by specifying 'label track'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that label tracks are for text annotations or when to prefer this over track_add_mono/stereo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the selection requirement, it fails to disclose that this is a destructive mutation of audio data, lacks information about crossfade duration/curve, and omits reversibility or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the action, second states the prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive audio effect, the description covers the basic operation and selection requirement, but lacks critical behavioral details like crossfade duration, whether parameters are configurable elsewhere, or undo behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per rubric guidelines. The description adds necessary context by explaining that the tool operates on the 'junction point' between clips (the implicit selection/cursor position), which compensates for the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (crossfade) and resource (clips), with the critical constraint 'on the same track' that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'effect_crossfade_tracks'. The scope is precisely defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides an explicit prerequisite ('Select the junction point between two clips first'), which is essential usage guidance for this stateful operation. However, it could explicitly contrast with 'effect_crossfade_tracks' to clarify when to use each.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly documents all parameters but fails to disclose operational behavior: whether this creates a new track, overwrites a selection, requires a project to be open, or what it returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose statement followed by an Args section. While the multiline Args format is slightly verbose, it is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, and every line provides essential parameter constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately documents inputs but is incomplete regarding side effects (e.g., where the generated audio is placed in the project). For a generation tool, this operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (titles only). The description fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with types (waveform options), units (Hz, seconds), valid ranges (0-1 for amplitude), and defaults, providing complete semantic coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Generate a chirp (frequency sweep),' providing a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'frequency sweep' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_tone (static) and generate_dtmf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the 'frequency sweep' designation implies usage for sweeping tones versus static tones, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over generate_tone or other generation tools, nor any mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context that 'labels will be numbered' and operates on 'selection or project', but omits whether this overwrites existing labels, requires specific permissions, or what it returns upon completion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. Every element earns its place. The Args format is slightly code-documentation styled rather than conversational, but remains highly readable and functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the parameters and basic operation. However, it should ideally clarify whether the tool returns a success confirmation, the label objects created, or nothing, and whether existing labels are preserved or affected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), so the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: interval (seconds), adjust (fit selection evenly), and label_text (with numbering behavior). It also provides default values for each, which are critical for an agent to understand optional parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Create[s] labels at regular time intervals across the selection or project', providing a specific verb (Create), resource (labels), and mechanism (regular time intervals). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like label_add (single label), analyze_label_sounds (content-based), and transcribe_to_labels (speech-based).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'regular time intervals' and 'across the selection or project', suggesting temporal regularity vs. event-based labeling. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like label_add_at for specific timestamps, or whether a selection is required vs. operating on the full project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the relationship to effects but omits critical behavioral details such as whether this replaces existing selections, affects cursor position, or validates that start < end.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with purpose first, followed by usage context, then an Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or verbose text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter selection tool, the description covers the basics adequately but lacks completeness regarding selection state management (replace vs. add) and validation constraints that would help an agent avoid errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage (only titles 'Start'/'End'), the description compensates effectively by specifying these are 'time in seconds,' providing essential unit information that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Select') and clear resource ('time region in the current track(s)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like select_all, select_clip, or select_tracks by specifying temporal bounds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that 'Many effects operate on the selection,' implying this tool is used to scope subsequent effect operations. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance or contrasts with alternatives like select_all or select_clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists representative returned fields (names, types, rates) which helps, but uses vague 'etc.' without clarifying what other fields exist. Does not disclose return structure (array vs object), error conditions, or whether this reflects current project state or cached data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place: 'Get information' establishes action, 'all tracks' establishes scope, parenthetical lists clarify return payload. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema, description should ideally detail return structure. While it lists example fields (names, types, rates), the 'etc.' leaves significant ambiguity about the full response shape. Adequate for a simple parameterless getter but lacks completeness given zero schema coverage on the output side.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage establishes baseline 4. Description adds value by specifying 'all tracks' scope, implicitly explaining why no track_id filter parameter exists or is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Get') + resource ('tracks') + scope ('all tracks in the project') with concrete field examples (names, types, rates). Clearly distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like track_set_properties, track_remove, and track_add_*. Uses 'Get information' to signal read-only introspection vs. modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Purpose is clear enough that usage is implied (use when you need track metadata), but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. Does not contrast with project_get_info (which gets project-level vs track-level data) or track_select (which changes selection state vs returning data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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. While 'Remove' implies deletion, the description lacks details on destructiveness, undoability, or whether underlying audio files are affected. It mentions track(s) can be plural, indicating batch capability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first states the operation, second states the prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential usage pattern (selection prerequisite). It appropriately references the sibling tool track_select. Minor gap in not describing the mutation's permanence or return confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds value by explaining the implicit input mechanism—the 'currently selected' state—referencing track_select as the mechanism to populate this state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('currently selected track(s)'), distinguishing it from clip-level operations like edit_delete. It effectively signals this is a track management operation rather than an audio content edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow ('Select tracks first with track_select'), guiding the agent on the correct sequence of operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like track_mute or warn against using it when tracks shouldn't be deleted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions prerequisite requirement but omits critical behavioral details: whether selection is exclusive (deselects other tracks), whether it clears audio selections within the track, or persistence behavior. '0-based' indexing disclosure is helpful operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args:' section, while slightly informal/docstring-style, is justified given the schema's lack of descriptions. No redundant text, though could integrate parameter description more smoothly into prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter selection tool with no output schema. Covers the basic contract but misses selection mechanics (exclusive vs additive) that would help an agent predict side effects when chaining with track_mute, track_remove, or edit operations on specific tracks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage with no parameter descriptions. Description fully compensates by defining 'track' as 'Track index (0-based)', providing both semantic meaning and format constraint (0-based indexing) that the schema lacks. Essential given the schema failure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Select a track') and mechanism ('by index'), distinguishing from sibling selection tools like select_all or select_region which operate on audio content rather than track objects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from track_get_info or clarify whether this selects the track object versus enabling it for editing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear prerequisite guidance ('Many operations require selecting a track first'), establishing when to use the tool in the workflow. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternatives (e.g., select_tracks for multi-selection), but the prerequisite context is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that 'end of project' means 'last audio' (addressing ambiguity), but omits edge case behavior (empty projects, return values, or idempotency).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(last audio)' is front-loaded with critical clarifying information, making it appropriately compact for a simple navigation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the operation. It could be improved by mentioning behavior on empty projects or confirming the action is non-destructive, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, tools with no parameters receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Move'), clear resource ('cursor'), and precise target ('end of the project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cursor_to_track_end and cursor_to_project_start by explicitly scoping to 'project' and defining 'end' as 'last audio'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage through specific naming (project-level vs track-level), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over cursor_to_track_end or cursor_set_position. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying '(time 0)' as the destination, but lacks operational details such as idempotency, undo behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place: 'Move' (action), 'cursor' (object), 'start of the project' (destination), '(time 0)' (disambiguation).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's trivial complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, simple cursor operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the action and destination clearly, though it could optionally clarify playback implications or project state requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation since the tool accepts no arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move') with clear resource ('the cursor') and scope ('start of the project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cursor_to_project_end and cursor_to_track_start by explicitly specifying 'project' and '(time 0)'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage through specific naming ('project' vs 'track', 'start' vs 'end'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the more general cursor_set_position or alternatives. No 'when-not' or comparative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary action but omits behavioral details such as whether this affects playback position immediately, what happens if no track is selected, or whether the operation is undoable/reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, zero redundancy. Every word earns its place in describing exactly what the tool does without extraneous formatting or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward cursor navigation), the description is adequate. It could be improved by mentioning the prerequisite of having a track selected, but the core functionality is fully captured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds valuable context by referencing the 'selected track,' indicating the tool operates on implicit UI state rather than a passed parameter, which compensates for the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Move'), resource ('cursor'), and precise location ('start of the selected track'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'cursor_to_project_start' (track vs project scope) and 'cursor_to_track_end' (start vs end) through the explicit scope limitation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'selected track' (distinguishing it from project-level cursor tools), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'cursor_to_project_start' or 'cursor_set_position', nor does it mention prerequisites like having a track selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool operates on selections and creates separate clips, implying a non-destructive split operation. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a 'silence' (threshold), error conditions (no selection, no silences detected), or whether the operation is reversible/undoable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Split'), specifies the target ('selected audio'), clarifies the method ('at detected silences'), and states the result ('creating separate clips'). Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality for an automated editing operation. It explains what the tool does and its specific trigger mechanism (silence detection). It could be improved by noting that it uses automatic silence detection settings or mentioning selection requirements explicitly, but it is sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to calibration rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Split'), target resource ('selected audio'), mechanism ('at detected silences'), and outcome ('creating separate clips'). The phrase 'at detected silences' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_split, edit_split_cut, and edit_join by specifying the automatic detection behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you want to split audio based on silence detection) and implies prerequisites ('selected audio' suggests a selection must exist). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_split or state when NOT to use this tool versus manual splitting methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the key behavioral trait (creates silence rather than joining clips), but lacks details on reversibility, cursor position after operation, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place—'without closing the gap' and 'leaves silence' are distinct value-adds that prevent confusion with standard cut operations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's narrow scope (0 params, no output schema, simple edit operation), the description is sufficient. It explains the critical distinction from other cut variants; only minor details like post-operation selection state are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Cut' with resource 'selected audio' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'edit_cut' by specifying 'without closing the gap' and clarifying in parentheses that it 'leaves silence where audio was.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without closing the gap' implies when to use this tool (when timeline position must be preserved), but it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'edit_cut' or state when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies that a new track is created, but omits critical behavioral details: whether the selected audio is moved (removed from original track) or copied, and whether the original track closes the gap or remains silent. This ambiguity is significant for a destructive-looking edit operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of eleven words with no filler. It is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and every phrase contributes essential information about the operation's scope and destination.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the primary function. However, it falls slightly short of completeness by not clarifying the impact on the source track (move vs. copy behavior), which is relevant given the tool's naming similarity to other split variants.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, though it implicitly references the 'selection' state which is managed by other tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Split'), identifies the resource ('selected audio'), and crucially differentiates from sibling tool 'edit_split' by specifying the destination ('into a new track'). The scope is precisely bounded by 'selection boundaries'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating the outcome (creation of a new track), allowing inference of when to use it (when you want to isolate a selection to its own track). However, it lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'requires an active selection') and does not contrast with similar siblings like 'edit_split' or 'edit_split_cut'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well. It explicitly notes the tool is 'Not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity — verified against the scripting reference and unit tests with mocked responses only,' which is an honest and important behavioral disclosure. It also reveals that labels with no text are auto-named 'Chapter 1', 'Chapter 2', etc., adding behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with an organized structure, though it slightly over-explains the use-case narrative. It front-loads purpose well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and moderate complexity representing a write operation with format variations. The description covers the formats, path requirement, and default naming behavior. However, it doesn't describe what the return value or success/failure indication looks like, nor does it discuss error conditions (e.g., what happens if the path already exists, which it hints is prohibited). For a file-exporting tool the completeness is adequate but could be richer on error/validation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It explains that 'path' is an absolute path for the output file and must not already exist, and that 'format' takes simple/cue/podlove values with default simple. This covers both parameters adequately, though the format values were partially enumerated in prose rather than schema enums. The guidance is sufficient to understand both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Export labels as a chapter/marker file' with specific verb, resource, and output type. It explains the transformation (label track → standard marker file) and gives concrete use cases (long-form audio chapters, track listing for mixes, lecture indexes), effectively distinguishing it from sibling label tools like label_export or project_export_labels by emphasizing the chapter/marker transformation rather than raw label export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description gives clear context on what the tool produces and introduces the distinction between label tracks and marker/chapter files, which differentiates it from the related label_export and project_export_labels siblings. It enumerates the three format options (simple, cue, podlove), which serves as selection guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for comparison, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not clarify behavioral traits like whether this affects all tracks vs current track, if it requires an open project, or that it is non-destructive (merely changing selection state). For a state-change tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three words: 'Deselect all audio.' It is maximally concise with zero redundancy, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, simple selection operation), the description is sufficient. However, it could be improved by clarifying scope (e.g., 'across all tracks' or 'in the current project') to match the granularity of sibling select_* tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. With no parameters to describe, there is nothing to add, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Deselect') and resource ('audio'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like select_all (opposite operation), select_clip (specific item), and select_region (specific range). The scope ('all') is explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the tool's purpose is clear from the name and description, there are no explicit guidelines on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to clear selection before applying effects to specific tracks only') or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the non-destructive behavior ('keeping the originals') and side effect (creates 'new track'), but omits details about post-operation selection state, return values, or whether the new track is automatically selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action (mix/render) followed by the critical distinction (keeping originals) and ends with the prerequisite (select tracks first). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter input schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract for this audio editing operation. However, it could be improved by mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., track metadata, success confirmation) or the final selection state after execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description adds value by referencing 'selected tracks,' alerting the agent that this tool operates on the current application selection state rather than explicit ID parameters. This compensates for the empty schema by documenting the implicit input requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides specific verbs ('Mix and render'), identifies the resource ('selected tracks'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tool 'track_mix_and_render' by specifying 'into a new track, keeping the originals.' This explicitly signals the non-destructive nature of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Select tracks first' establishes a prerequisite for use, but the description fails to explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus the sibling 'track_mix_and_render' (which likely performs a destructive or in-place render). No guidance on prerequisites beyond selection state is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Mute' implies a state-modifying operation, but the description omits whether this action is reversible (via track_unmute_all), idempotent, or what happens when no tracks exist. It meets the minimum by stating the action but lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single efficient sentence with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter schema and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, for a state-modifying action, it could enhance completeness by mentioning reversibility via 'track_unmute_all' or noting that this affects the entire project state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rules. The description requires no parameter clarification, though it correctly implies no filtering or selection criteria are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Mute') and clear scope ('all tracks in the project'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'track_mute' which likely targets specific tracks. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the phrase 'all tracks,' suggesting use when global muting is needed versus individual track muting. However, it lacks explicit guidance such as 'To mute specific tracks, use track_mute instead' or mention of the complementary 'track_unmute_all' tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (unmuting) but omits behavioral details such as whether changes are reversible, if the operation affects soloed tracks, error conditions when no project is open, or the nature of state persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and scope, making it immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, simple state change), the description adequately covers the essential function. However, it could be improved by clarifying whether this operates on the current project context or requires an active selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this earns a default score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb (Unmute), resource (tracks), and scope (all in the project). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'track_mute' (singular) and 'track_mute_all' (inverse operation) through its naming and explicit scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage through the phrase 'all tracks,' it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'track_mute' for individual tracks or whether it supersedes individual track mute states. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds crucial behavioral detail 'in seconds' (unit of measurement) not present in schema. However, omits read-only confirmation, return data type (float vs integer), and behavior when playback is stopped vs active.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and precisely scoped with unit specification. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for low-complexity tool with zero parameters. Specifies the return value unit (seconds), compensating somewhat for missing output schema. Could improve by indicating return type (number) or that it reflects the playhead/transport position.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, establishing baseline 4. Description correctly requires no parameter explanation, though it effectively implies the tool requires no inputs to retrieve the current state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Get' and resource 'playback position' clearly identify the function. The 'in seconds' qualification distinguishes the return format and scope from cursor-related siblings like transport_set_cursor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage through the verb 'Get' (use when needing to query position), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from similar tools like cursor_set_position or transport_set_cursor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the playback origin point (cursor position) but omits operational details like blocking behavior, interaction with existing playback states, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose in defining the operation and its scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a zero-parameter transport control with no output schema. Covers the essential action and scope, though could benefit from brief transport state interaction notes (e.g., stops existing playback).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present (baseline 4). The description adds valuable context by referencing the implicit 'current cursor position' state dependency, clarifying what determines the playback start even though no parameters are passed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Start playback' plus scope 'from the current cursor position' clearly defines the action. The cursor position detail effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool transport_play_region.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from the current cursor position' implies when to use this (when cursor is at desired start point), but lacks explicit guidance contrasting with transport_play_region or prerequisites like cursor positioning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses that a new track is created as part of the operation, but omits other critical behavioral traits: whether it stops existing playback first, what happens if recording is already active, error conditions (no input device), and whether the operation is destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler words or redundant explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the domain (transport control), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by clarifying interaction with current transport state (e.g., 'Recording continues until transport_stop is called'), but adequately covers the core function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds semantic context by clarifying the side effect (creation of a new track), which compensates for the empty schema by explaining what resource the tool acts upon.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Start recording') and clear scope ('on a new track'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling transport controls like transport_play and transport_pause, and from track management tools like track_add_mono.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when the user wants to record audio), but provides no explicit workflow guidance, prerequisites (e.g., audio input requirements), or relationship to transport_stop. It does not clarify if recording stops automatically or continues indefinitely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating side effect ('add labels') and the selection requirement, but fails to clarify other behavioral traits like idempotency, performance on long selections, or what happens when no beats are detected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with clear front-loading (purpose first, parameters second). The Args block is standard and efficient. No redundant or wasteful text is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, selection context, side effects, and parameter semantics. It could be improved by mentioning return behavior or edge cases, but it suffices for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. The Args section effectively documents 'thres_val' with its range (0-100), semantic meaning (lower = more sensitive), and default value, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Find beats') and the resource ('selected audio'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_label_sounds' or 'analyze_find_clipping' by specifying 'beats' and the side effect of adding labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies prerequisites by mentioning 'selected audio', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'analyze_label_sounds' or 'label_regular_intervals'. It does not specify when NOT to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully notes the scope constraint ('selected audio'), implying selection is required. However, it lacks disclosure of mutation characteristics (whether destructive/modifying in-place), undo behavior, or return values, which are important for an audio processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is optimally structured with a single clear purpose sentence followed by an Args block. Every element earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous text while maintaining complete parameter documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate coverage of purpose, example use case, and parameter details. It lacks only explicit notes on the destructive nature of the operation or return behavior to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive semantics for both parameters: valid ranges (0-900, 0-40), units (samples), directional effects ('Higher = fewer clicks removed'), and default values (200, 20).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove clicks and pops') and target ('selected audio'), with the parenthetical example '(e.g. vinyl recordings)' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like noise_reduction or effect_repair by indicating the specific type of audio artifact it addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The example 'vinyl recordings' provides implicit contextual guidance for when to use this tool, but there are no explicit guidelines comparing it to alternatives (e.g., when to use noise_reduction vs click_removal) or prerequisites beyond the 'selected audio' reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, successfully noting the selection prerequisite but omitting whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or risks clipping. It documents parameter constraints (> 0) but does not describe side effects of extreme ratio values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two high-value sentences followed by a clear Args documentation block, with zero redundant or filler content. Every element directly supports correct tool invocation and parameter configuration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter audio effect without output schema, the description adequately covers invocation prerequisites and parameter semantics. It could be improved by noting behavioral traits like clipping risk or destructiveness, but is sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the ratio parameter with semantic examples (1.5 = 150%, 0.5 = 50%), value constraints (Must be > 0), and default value (1.0). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb (amplify), target resource (selected audio), and mechanism (by a ratio), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like effect_reverb or analyze_beat_finder. It precisely defines the tool's scope as ratio-based amplitude modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Select audio first' establishes a critical prerequisite for invocation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like normalize or limiter, and does not specify contraindications such as avoiding amplification that causes clipping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides valuable constraint information (range -95 to 3000) and examples, but lacks safety context such as whether the operation is destructive, requires a selection, or can be undone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose and differentiation, the second documents the parameter with constraints and examples. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and constraints. Minor gap: does not explicitly confirm behavior when selection is missing or if the effect applies in-place.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the percent parameter's valid range, directionality (positive/negative), and concrete examples (50% faster, 25% slower).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Change), resource (tempo of selected audio), and critical differentiator (without changing pitch), which distinguishes it from siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_speed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without changing pitch' implies usage (when pitch preservation is needed), but there are no explicit when-to-use guidelines, exclusions, or named alternatives like effect_change_speed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'selected audio' implying state dependency, but fails to disclose destructive mutation nature, fade curve characteristics, or reversibility of the operation. Minimal viable disclosure for an audio effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Apply a fade-in'), followed by prerequisite. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fade effect with no parameters or output schema, the description covers basic operation and selection prerequisite. However, gaps remain regarding fade duration behavior (does it use full selection length?), curve type, and destructive side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters per schema, establishing baseline of 4. Description adds critical implicit context that the tool operates on the 'selected' region, compensating for the empty parameter schema by explaining the selection dependency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Apply' with resource 'fade-in' and target 'selected audio'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like effect_fade_out and effect_crossfade_clips by specifying the exact fade direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear prerequisite instruction 'Select the region to fade first', indicating this tool requires a prior selection action. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., when to use fade_in vs fade_out), but the prerequisite guidance is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the filter behavior (cutoff, rolloff) and defaults, but fails to mention critical execution context: whether the operation is destructive, requires an active selection, or what it returns (success/void/error).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose statement, followed by usage context, then structured Args documentation. No wasted words. Minor deduction for using 'Args:' docstring format rather than integrated prose, though clarity remains high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and basic purpose. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, it should specify what happens upon invocation (e.g., 'modifies selected audio', 'returns success status') to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: frequency (with units 'Hz', default value, and purpose 'removes sub-bass rumble') and rolloff (with valid options 'dB6'/'dB12' and unit 'dB/octave').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('high-pass filter'), explicitly stating the effect ('remove low frequencies below the cutoff'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_low_pass_filter (removes highs) and effect_notch_filter (targets specific frequencies).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow context ('Essential as step 1 in mastering chains to remove sub-rumble'), indicating when the tool should be used. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or comparisons to alternatives like effect_equalization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the filtering behavior but omits key operational details such as whether the effect is destructive, if it requires an active selection, or how it handles multiple tracks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a single purpose statement followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter audio effect with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter details. It could be improved by noting selection requirements or project state prerequisites, but it is sufficiently complete for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting both parameters with clear semantics: frequency includes units (Hz) and default, while rolloff explains the enum values ('dB6' = 6 dB/octave) and their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Apply a low-pass filter'), the target resource (audio frequencies), and the exact effect ('remove high frequencies above the cutoff'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_high_pass_filter or effect_notch_filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description clearly defines the tool's function (removing high frequencies), it does not explicitly guide when to choose this over the sibling effect_high_pass_filter or other filters, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the Q factor behavior ('Higher = narrower notch') but fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive, applies to the current selection or entire track, or produces side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the purpose front-loaded, followed by an Args section. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter audio effect without output schema, the description is adequately complete. Minor gap regarding scope (selection vs. track-wide application) prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the text fully compensates by documenting both parameters with units (Hz), valid ranges (0.1-20), semantic meaning ('sharpness'), and default rationale ('US mains hum').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Remove[s] a specific frequency (e.g. 50/60Hz hum) with a notch filter' — providing a specific verb, resource, and concrete example that distinguishes it from sibling filters like high_pass or low_pass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The example of '50/60Hz hum' provides implied usage context for mains interference removal, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like effect_equalization or high_pass_filter, and mentions no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite state (audio must be selected) and hints at performance characteristics via the time_resolution parameter explanation. However, it fails to explicitly state whether the effect is destructive (modifies selection) or creates new audio, a significant omission for an audio processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the purpose statement first, followed by the critical prerequisite, then the Args documentation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description successfully covers the essential semantics and prerequisites. It is nearly complete but would benefit from explicitly stating the destructive/mutative nature of the effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. It excellently documents both parameters: stretch_factor explains the scaling logic (1.0 = no change) with examples, and time_resolution clarifies the quality/speed trade-off and units (seconds). This adds substantial semantic value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as an 'Extreme time-stretch effect' and specifies the creative output ('creates ambient/drone textures'). The term 'Extreme' and the texture description effectively distinguish it from sibling time-manipulation tools like effect_change_speed or effect_sliding_stretch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the critical prerequisite 'Select audio first,' indicating when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like effect_change_speed or effect_change_tempo, though the 'ambient/drone' hint implies the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys the sliding/variable behavior ('gradually'), but lacks disclosure on whether the operation is destructive, modifies audio in-place, or creates new tracks. It also omits performance characteristics or prerequisites like requiring an active selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Perfectly structured with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place by conveying either the core function or essential parameter constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description successfully documents all inputs with ranges and units. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify the output behavior (whether the effect applies to current selection in-place or creates new audio), though this is somewhat implied by the 'effect_' naming convention.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section provides critical semantic details absent from the schema: units (% for tempo, semitones for pitch), valid ranges (-99 to 3000, -12 to 12), and the start/end interpolation logic. Without this, the agent would not understand the parameter constraints or meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool changes 'tempo and/or pitch gradually across the selection' with the specific mechanism 'sliding time stretch.' This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo (which presumably apply static changes) by emphasizing the gradual/sliding nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case through 'gradually' (variable changes over time), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to static alternatives like effect_change_tempo. The agent must infer when sliding versus constant changes are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully explains the six action variants and mentions 'stereo track' context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the effect modifies audio in-place or creates new tracks, destructiveness, reversibility, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficient documentation-style structure with clear separation between purpose statement and parameter definitions. No redundant or filler text; every line provides specific technical detail necessary for invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters. However, it omits important contextual details like whether the effect applies to the current selection or entire project, and what success/failure indicators look like since no output schema exists to document returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section provides comprehensive semantics for all four parameters: action (complete enum mapping), low_cutoff/high_cutoff (units in Hz), and strength (valid range 0-50), plus all default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific action: 'remove or isolate vocals from a stereo track.' This distinct verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling effect tools (e.g., effect_reverb, effect_echo) and analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage guidance through the detailed Args section explaining each action value (0-5), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like noise_reduction or analyze_* tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites like audio selection requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that it's an in-place mutation ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and specifies the index must come from label_list. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is reversible, what the return value is, or what happens with invalid indices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly written with no wasted words. A brief purpose statement, a usage prerequisite, and illustrative examples all in a compact block. The Args section is formatted clearly and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters, demonstrates usage, and clarifies partial-update semantics. However, it's a moderately simple tool (4 params, one required), and the potential gap is not disclosing failure behavior or return values, which matters for an editing command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter well: index is a 'Flat label index from label_list', text/new start/new end defaults are 'unchanged', and examples show the exact call patterns. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Purpose is clear: 'Edit an existing label's text and/or timing.' It uses a specific verb (edit) plus resource (label), and the scope is precise — only the fields you pass are changed. The examples with usage patterns (rename vs. move boundary) further clarify the two distinct use cases, and it clearly differentiates from siblings like label_add, label_delete, and label_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use it: get the index from label_list first. It shows how to rename versus move a boundary with explicit examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like label_add_batch or label_regular_intervals, so it lacks explicit exclusions but otherwise provides solid guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the return format is raw/unparsed (a useful behavioral trait), but doesn't describe the raw response structure, pagination, or size limits. Since it's a read-only fetch with no mutation, the impact is moderate, but for zero-annotation coverage the description could add more context about what the raw response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, extremely efficient. The first states the purpose and return format; the second redirects to the preferred alternative with a concrete reason. Zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is quite complete: it states purpose, return format, and the preferred alternative. The main gap is not describing what the raw GetInfo response actually contains, which would help an agent predict the shape of the data. But given the simplicity of the tool, the coverage is strong.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% by definition. There are no parameters to document, so the description needs only clarify what's returned, which it does by noting raw GetInfo response. With zero params, this is an appropriate baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource ('Get all labels in the project') and characterizes the return format as 'Audacity's raw GetInfo response', which distinguishes it from the parsed alternative label_list. It's clear but doesn't elaborate on what the raw response structure looks like, so not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the agent to prefer label_list for most use cases, noting that label_list returns the same labels already parsed with the index needed for label_edit/label_delete. This is precisely the kind of when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance that helps an agent select correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a UI window ('Open the Plot Spectrum window') and requires a selection, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, what happens if no region is selected, or whether spectrum data is returned vs. purely displayed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first states the purpose immediately, and the second provides the critical prerequisite. There is no redundant or wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It explains the action and prerequisite, though it could benefit from clarifying whether the tool returns data or produces only a visual window.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds value by identifying the implicit input ('selected audio' / 'region'), which compensates for the empty parameter schema by clarifying what data the tool operates on.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open') with a specific resource ('Plot Spectrum window') and scope ('for the selected audio'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from analysis siblings like analyze_beat_finder or analyze_contrast by specifying the exact analysis type (spectrum plotting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Select a region first'), indicating when the tool is ready to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative analysis tools or clarify when to choose spectrum analysis over other analysis methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect (clipboard storage) and the input prerequisite (selection), but omits error behavior when nothing is selected, clipboard persistence details, or scope limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero redundancy: the first states the core action, the second states the prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation constraint (selection requirement) and primary effect. It adequately supports the tool's limited complexity, though explicit error handling guidance would improve it to a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. No parameter documentation is required or expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Copy'), identifies the resource ('selected audio'), and specifies the destination ('clipboard'). It clearly distinguishes from destructive siblings like edit_cut and destination-oriented siblings like edit_paste.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Select a region first' provides a clear prerequisite for invocation, implicitly guiding users to selection tools (select_region, etc.) beforehand. However, it does not explicitly contrast usage with alternatives like edit_cut for different workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the clipboard destination but omits behavioral details like whether the operation is undoable, what happens if no region is selected, or that it overwrites the previous clipboard contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second states the prerequisite. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple zero-parameter operation and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential usage context (action + prerequisite). Would benefit from annotations describing destructiveness, but sufficient as-is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), which warrants the baseline score of 4. No parameter description is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Cut') with clear resource ('selected audio') and destination ('clipboard'), distinguishing it from siblings like edit_copy (which preserves the original) and edit_delete (which doesn't use clipboard).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear prerequisite ('Select a region first') establishing when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_copy or specify error conditions when no selection exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that operation is destructive (deletes audio) and clipboard-independent. However, lacks mention of undoability, error behavior when no selection exists, or whether deletion is permanent versus recoverable—important gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes operation and key behavioral trait (clipboard exclusion), second states prerequisite. Front-loaded with critical information, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a zero-parameter destructive operation with no output schema. Covers what is deleted, prerequisites, and differentiation from siblings. Missing only error-handling context and undo behavior, which would elevate it to completeness for a destructive tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema contains zero parameters, warranting baseline score of 4. Description appropriately requires no parameter explanation since the tool operates solely on the current selection state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Delete' + resource 'selected audio' with clear scope. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_cut by noting 'does not copy to clipboard', making the distinction between destructive deletion and clipboard-cutting immediately apparent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States prerequisite 'Select a region first', clearly indicating when the tool is ready for use. Implicitly guides against use when no selection exists. Could be strengthened by explicitly contrasting with edit_cut/edit_copy, but the clipboard note provides sufficient implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'in place' mutation behavior and distinguishes from track-creating alternatives, but omits prerequisites (cursor/selection requirement), reversibility, and the specific result state (two adjacent clips).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Split the clip'), followed by location constraints and behavioral modifiers in parentheses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. Successfully differentiates from siblings (edit_split_new, edit_split_cut, edit_split_delete) via the 'no new track' clarification. Minor gap: does not mention that a cursor position or selection must be established prior to invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion as none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Split') and resource ('the clip') with clear scope ('at cursor position or selection boundaries'). The parenthetical '(in place, no new track)' effectively distinguishes it from sibling edit_split_new.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly guides selection by noting the tool works 'in place' with 'no new track', contrasting with edit_split_new. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or prerequisites (e.g., that a cursor position or selection must exist first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation applies to 'selected audio' (indicating a selection prerequisite), but omits whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has side effects on audio quality. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first defines the operation, the second provides the use case. No redundant words or generic filler. Front-loaded with the action verb and precisely scoped to 'selected audio'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is appropriately complete. It explains what the tool does and why to use it. A perfect 5 would require acknowledging destructiveness or undo behavior, but this is sufficient for agent selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters, and the mention of 'selected audio' correctly implies the operation scope without contradicting the empty parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Invert'/'flip phase') and resource ('selected audio'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like 'effect_reverse' (time reversal) or 'effect_amplify' (volume change). The parenthetical clarification '(flip phase)' precisely defines the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides explicit usage guidance ('Useful for phase cancellation'), indicating the primary scenario for selecting this tool over other effects. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, the specific use case effectively guides selection among the numerous audio effect siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable error behavior ('Audacity will show an error popup if the selection is too long') and constraint details. However, omits key behavioral traits like whether the operation is destructive/permanent or what repair algorithm is used.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), prerequisite (sentence 2), constraint/error (sentence 3). Front-loaded with specific scope limit. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter effect with no output schema, description adequately covers critical constraints (128 sample limit) and prerequisites. Could be improved by explicitly stating the destructive nature of the repair operation, but the critical usage constraints are complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters present, which per guidelines sets baseline to 4. Description correctly focuses on implicit prerequisite (audio selection) rather than inventing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Repair' with clear resource 'damaged section of audio' and precise scope constraint 'max 128 samples'. The length restriction effectively distinguishes this from sibling repair tools like click_removal or noise_reduction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states prerequisites ('Select the damaged region first') and constraints ('must be extremely short', 'max 128 samples'). Defines when to use (very short damage only). Lacks explicit naming of alternatives for longer sections, though the constraint implies when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 establishes the selection prerequisite but fails to clarify whether the operation is destructive (modifies in-place), what happens if no region is selected (error vs no-op), or performance characteristics for long selections.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second states the prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information (action + prerequisite). A perfect score would require noting the destructive nature or error conditions, but the description is sufficient for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by referencing the external selection state ('Select a region first'), which compensates for the empty input schema by clarifying the implicit input requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Reverse') and resource ('audio'), clearly distinguishing this time-based manipulation from sibling effects like effect_invert (phase inversion) or effect_echo. The scope is immediately understood.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The prerequisite 'Select a region first' provides essential context for when the tool can be invoked, implying it requires an active selection. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar temporal effects or guidance on when to prefer this over effect_change_speed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the key behavioral trait (non-linear curve shape for natural sound) but omits whether the effect is destructive or reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the action, the second explains the differentiating quality. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and quality characteristics. It could be improved by explicitly stating that the effect modifies audio in-place (destructive behavior).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds context that the operation applies to the 'selected audio,' clarifying the implicit target of the effect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (apply fade out) and resource (selected audio), while distinguishing from sibling 'effect_fade_out' by specifying 'studio-quality' and 'specially shaped curve' versus linear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a prerequisite by mentioning 'selected audio,' indicating a selection must exist. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling 'effect_fade_out' beyond implying superior quality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return value ('user's Music folder path') but omits error conditions, side effects, or whether this operation requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, all earning their place: purpose declaration, return value specification, and usage condition. Information is front-loaded and zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameter-less getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value semantics (Music folder path). Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with the transcription folder sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has 0 parameters, meeting the baseline expectation. The schema requires no additional semantic clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('default folder for exporting audio files'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_default_transcription_folder' by specifying 'exporting audio files' vs transcription.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when the user doesn't specify where to save'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the return value (Documents folder) but lacks details on return format (string path vs object), error conditions (e.g., if Documents is inaccessible), or side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences total: purpose declaration, return value specification, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and maintains tight focus throughout.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (simple getter) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by stating what gets returned (Documents folder). It misses explicit safety classification (read-only) and return type format, but is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage trivially satisfied. As per rubric guidelines for 0-param tools, this establishes a baseline of 4. No parameter semantics are needed in the description, and none are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'default folder for saving transcription files' and explicitly states it 'Returns the user's Documents folder.' It distinguishes from sibling 'get_default_export_folder' by specifying 'transcription files' rather than generic exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance 'Call this when the user doesn't specify where to save,' which establishes the trigger condition. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., using a custom path parameter in transcribe_to_file) or explicitly state when NOT to use it beyond the implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default ceiling (-1.0 dB) and industry context (streaming standard), but fails to state whether this is a destructive operation, what audio scope it processes (selection vs track), or side effects like latency introduced by the hold time.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, followed by usage context, then parameter documentation. The Args section is necessarily verbose given the empty schema, but information density is high with no filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 6 parameters with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all inputs and workflow context. Minor gap: lacks description of return value or confirmation of what gets modified (selected audio vs entire project).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters in the Args section, including semantic meaning (e.g., 'Maximum output level'), units (dB, milliseconds), valid string options for enums ('SoftLimit', 'HardLimit', etc.), and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action ('Apply a limiter') and clear purpose ('prevent audio from exceeding a threshold'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'compressor' tool by specifying it should be 'Use after compression', establishing a clear processing chain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow guidance ('Use after compression') that positions it relative to sibling dynamics processors. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., vs. 'normalize' for loudness control).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully explains the acoustic benefit (preventing clicks) and implies this modifies selection state not audio data. However, it omits safety details (reversibility), failure modes (what if no zero crossing exists?), or whether it requires an existing selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first states the action, second provides usage context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter selection utility with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential what and why. It could be improved by explicitly stating prerequisites (requires existing selection) but is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific action verb 'Adjust' with clear resource 'current selection boundaries' and mechanism 'nearest zero crossings'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling selection tools (select_all, select_region, etc.) by specifying the zero-crossing behavior rather than just selecting content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit contextual guidance: 'Useful before cuts to avoid audible clicks at edit points.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool (prior to cut operations) and the benefit (preventing clicks), though it does not explicitly name alternative selection tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it explains the alignment concept, it fails to disclose whether this operation is destructive (modifies existing track positions), reversible, or if it affects clip timing vs. track order. For a state-modifying audio operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the prerequisite is clearly stated in the second. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema) and the domain context, the description is nearly complete. It adequately covers the 'what' and 'how to prepare,' though it could improve by noting whether the alignment is permanent or if tracks are copied rather than moved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description adds value by referencing the implicit input ('selected tracks'), clarifying that track selection via other tools (like track_select) is the intended input mechanism.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (align end-to-end/sequentially) and resource (tracks), distinguishing it from siblings like track_mix_and_render or track_set_properties. The parenthetical '(sequentially)' reinforces the exact arrangement pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit prerequisite ('Select the tracks first'), which is crucial context given the zero-parameter schema. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like track_mix_and_render) or state when NOT to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers remarkably thorough disclosure. It explicitly warns that measurement, label_type, pre_offset, post_offset, and label_text are 'not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity — verified against the scripting reference and unit tests with mocked responses only.' This is excellent transparency about tool reliability. It also distinguishes which parameters are trusted (threshold_db/min_silence_duration/min_sound_duration) from those that aren't.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a practical usage paragraph, a crucial caveat about untested parameters, and a clean Args section. It's front-loaded with the purpose. The main deduction is that the parameter list duplicates the schema defaults verbatim, adding some redundancy — though the added semantics justify most of it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no outputs schema, and no annotations, this is remarkable. It explains what the tool does, provides a concrete use case, warns about untested functionality, and documents every parameter. The only missing element is return-value behavior, but with no output schema and the core purpose being a labeling side-effect, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the description compensates heavily. It provides one-line explanations for all 8 parameters, including units (dB, seconds), valid values for measurement (peak, avg, rms), and semantic detail for label_type (before, after, around, between). The only gap: enum values are listed but not formally constrained in the schema, and no guidance on interaction between params. Still, this is strong compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Automatically label regions of sound separated by silence' and mentions use of label_type='between' for labeling silences. It has a specific verb+resource (label sound regions) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on automated sound/silence detection, differentiating it from manual label tools like label_add or label_regular_intervals. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly frames this as 'A good starting point for segmenting a long recording' and explains a specific workflow: use label_type='between' to label silences 'so they can be trimmed with label_delete_regions.' This provides clear usage context and a concrete workflow suggestion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like analyze_beat_finder or truncate_silence, so a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the polling pattern (15-30 seconds) but lacks safety guarantees (read-only vs destructive), possible error states (invalid job_id), or return value structure (possible status states).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences covering purpose, usage context, and polling frequency, followed by Args documentation. No redundant information; efficiently front-loaded with essential operational guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter async monitoring tool, covers invocation pattern well. However, lacks description of return values (e.g., possible states like running/completed/failed) which is needed given no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only title and type). Description compensates by specifying job_id is 'returned by any auto_ pipeline tool', providing crucial semantic context about the parameter's origin and relationship to other tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Check' with clear resource 'status of a running pipeline'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling check_transcription_status by specifying use with 'auto_ pipeline' tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Call this after starting any auto_ pipeline' and specific operational instruction 'Poll every 15-30 seconds', giving clear when-to-use and how-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (tempo preservation) but omits mutation details, selection requirements, and error conditions (e.g., what happens if no audio is selected).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely efficient two-sentence structure: first sentence states purpose and key constraint, second documents the parameter. No redundant information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter effect tool with no output schema. Covers the essential operation and parameter semantics. Minor gap: does not confirm whether the effect applies to the current selection or entire project, though 'selected audio' implies selection context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only title 'Semitones'). The description adds critical semantic meaning: the unit (semitones), directionality (negative=lower, positive=higher), and type of value (number to shift). Fully compensates for schema deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Change') with clear resource ('pitch of the selected audio') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools via 'without changing tempo', differentiating it from effect_change_tempo and effect_change_speed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear behavioral context ('without changing tempo') that implicitly guides selection vs tempo-changing alternatives, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state prerequisites like requiring an audio selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully indicates the operation targets 'selected audio' and documents the parameter range (-99 to 4900) with an example (100 = double speed). However, it lacks explicit disclosure of whether the operation is destructive/modifies in-place, undo behavior, or error conditions (e.g., invalid selection).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action, uses a parenthetical for the key differentiating detail, and follows with a standard Args docstring format that efficiently documents the single parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter audio effect without output schema, the description is substantially complete. It covers purpose, selection requirements, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation. A minor gap exists regarding explicit destructive behavior disclosure, though this is somewhat implied by the 'effect_' naming convention and 'Change' verb.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides type and title), the description fully compensates by explaining the 'percent' parameter's semantic meaning ('Percentage change'), valid range constraints (-99 to 4900), and providing a concrete usage example ('100 = double speed').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Change speed') and target ('selected audio'). Crucially, it distinguishes itself from siblings effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo by explicitly stating it 'changes both tempo and pitch together', making the scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(changes both tempo and pitch together)' provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the sibling pitch-only or tempo-only alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, the LLM can infer from the sibling tool names that this is the correct choice only when both attributes need modification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the sort order (by Audacity's flat index) and notes it feeds label_edit/label_delete. But it doesn't describe return format, read-only safety, or side effects. For a read-only list tool with no annotations, this is moderate coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, zero filler. The first states the purpose, the second explains the critical sorting detail and usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete: states content, sort order, and usage pattern. Slight gap is no mention of return format or how large outputs are handled, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has 0 parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly notes this is a no-argument call that simply lists everything. Baseline 4 for 0 params is exceeded because the description explains what the no-arg call returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'List every label with its index, timing and text.' States what content is returned. Somewhat generic among label tools (label_get_all, label_find, label_export), but the emphasis on returning index differentiates partially.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this first whenever you need to modify a specific label, rather than guessing an index.' Directly names label_edit and label_delete as downstream consumers, providing clear usage context and preventing guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the non-destructive nature ('without removing anything'), clarifies that it acts on the current selection and selected tracks, and notes labels stay in place. This is strong behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether existing clips without labels are affected or how splitting interacts with adjacent unlabeled audio, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact — roughly 50 words in a title line plus three supporting sentences. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first line, followed by crucial state prerequisites and the non-destructive clarification. Every sentence earns its place. It's slightly redundant with 'the labels themselves stay where they are' restating the non-destructive point, but that reinforcement is justified given the destructive sibling context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately focuses on state requirements (selection, tracks) and behavioral effects. It adequately covers the main concerns: what it does, what it doesn't do (delete/move), and prerequisites. It doesn't describe the resulting clip structure in detail, but for a 0-parameter tool with this action, the description is well-rounded and sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), so the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description appropriately channels all state into the current selection and selected tracks rather than parameters, and explains this clearly. No parameter documentation is needed since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Split'), the resource ('audio clips'), and the trigger ('at every label boundary'). It distinguishes from siblings like label_cut_regions, label_delete_regions, and label_silence_regions by explicitly noting it 'prepares segment boundaries for separate handling without removing anything' and that 'labels stay where they are' — differentiating it from destructive or label-moving operations such as label_join_regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear operational context: acts on labeled regions within the current selection on SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS, with explicit prerequisite instruction to 'select the audio tracks and time range first'. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the non-destructive phrasing implicitly contrasts with destructive region tools among siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the blocking nature ('waits until the user closes it') and UI modality ('opens a modal dialog'), which are essential behavioral traits for an agent orchestrating tool calls. It could mention undo implications or save behavior, but the core execution pattern is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of exactly two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and capability; the second delivers critical blocking behavior information. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is appropriately complete. It covers the essential context: what UI element opens, what operations are possible within it, and the critical blocking behavior. It does not need to explain return values as there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters. As per the rubric, this warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to document, focusing instead on the tool's behavioral semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open') with a clear resource ('metadata editor dialog') and scope ('track metadata, title, artist, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'track_set_properties' by explicitly mentioning it opens a 'modal dialog,' signaling interactive UI behavior rather than programmatic property changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'track_set_properties,' it provides critical usage context by stating 'the command waits until the user closes it.' This clearly signals that the tool blocks execution and requires user interaction, guiding the agent away from using it in fully automated workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the export behavior and adds essential constraints like mandatory path announcement, prohibition on home-folder saves, and acceptable locations. However, it does not mention whether files are overwritten or what the return value is, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose first, then critical mandatory instructions, acceptable locations, and parameter details. While somewhat long, every sentence carries essential operational information, and the use of bold headings and lists aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter export tool, the description covers the main functionality, path rules, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It lacks explicit return value/error handling details and does not state overwrite behavior, but the provided guidance is sufficient for simple export tasks. No output schema exists, so some return information would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section explicitly describes both parameters: path as the absolute path with extension determining format (wav, mp3, ogg, flac, aiff), and num_channels with default 2 and clarification (1=mono, 2=stereo). This fully compensates for the schema having no property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports project audio to a file, with format determined by file extension. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like project_export_labels and project_import_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear operational context: mandatory user notification before export, never save to home folder, and accept only specified subfolders. It also references calling get_default_export_folder as an alternative when no path is given, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the file format (.aup3) and that it creates a new file, but omits critical behavioral details: whether it overwrites existing files at the path, and whether the active project context switches to the new file after saving (typical 'Save As' behavior).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences plus Args block with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage constraints, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter file operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers invocation constraints and parameter meaning. Missing only minor behavioral details (overwrite behavior, project context change) that would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The Args section compensates by specifying 'Absolute path' and the '.aup3 file' extension requirement, adding necessary constraints not present in the raw schema. Could be improved by noting if extension is auto-appended.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Save') + resource ('project') + format ('.aup3') + scope ('new file'). The 'save_as' semantics clearly distinguish it from sibling 'project_save' (which implies overwriting current file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit constraints: 'ONLY call when user explicitly asks' and 'Do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines.' Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses [EXPERIMENTAL] status, polling frequency (10-15s), and terminal states ('complete' or 'error'). Minor gap: doesn't mention intermediate states (e.g., 'processing') or error handling for invalid job_ids.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with experimental flag front-loaded, followed by purpose, usage workflow, and parameter details. No redundant sentences. Slight inefficiency in having both prose description and Args section for single parameter, but both add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter status tool with no output schema, description adequately covers invocation pattern and result interpretation (polling loop). Missing explicit description of return value structure, though 'complete'/'error' hints imply the status field semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description compensates via Args section explaining job_id is 'returned when you started the transcription', providing critical provenance context. Would be a 5 if it included format examples or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with specific verb 'Check' and clear resource 'status of a running transcription job'. The [EXPERIMENTAL] tag adds scope context. Clearly distinguishes from sibling check_pipeline_status by specifying 'transcription' domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this after starting transcribe_audio, transcribe_to_labels, or transcribe_to_file'. Names specific sibling tools as prerequisites. Provides concrete polling strategy: 'Poll every 10-15 seconds until status is complete or error', giving clear terminal conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the key behavioral trait: the operation leaves silence in place of deleted audio rather than shifting subsequent audio. It could mention reversibility, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete the selected audio'), followed by the critical qualifying clause that explains the specific behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains exactly what will happen to the audio project, providing sufficient information for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description adequately explains the tool's function without needing to elaborate on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('selected audio') and explicitly distinguishes this from siblings like 'edit_delete' or 'edit_cut' by clarifying it leaves silence rather than closing the gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description provides clear behavioral context ('without closing the gap') that implies when to use this tool (when preserving timing/structure is desired) versus standard delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool creates labels as a side effect and operates on 'selected audio' (scoping constraint). It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive/read-only, though this is reasonably implied by the 'analyze' prefix and label-creation description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter documentation is concise yet complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is appropriately complete. It explains what the tool does, its scope, its side effects (label creation), and fully documents all parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. The Args section excellently documents both parameters with semantic meaning ('Min number of consecutive clipped samples'), valid ranges (1-1000), and default values (3), providing complete information not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Find clipping') and resource ('selected audio'), plus the distinct outcome ('create labels at clipped regions'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling effect_clip_fix (which repairs clipping) and other analyze_* tools that perform different analyses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about the tool's function (detection and labeling) without explicitly naming alternatives. It implies usage through the specific action described, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over effect_clip_fix or other analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that the timeline closes up, that labeled regions collapse rather than surviving unchanged, and advises re-reading label_list afterward to see what remains. It also honestly notes it is 'Not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity' and contrasts with tested siblings — exceptional behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three paragraphs, each purposeful: the first states the action, the second explains scope and side effects, the third notes testing status. Well-organized and front-loaded with the core behavior, though the testing caveat paragraph could arguably be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does to the timeline, scope constraints, side effects on labeled regions, and reliability status. No essential operational detail is omitted for an agent to invoke it appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds contextual meaning about what the no-parameter operation does by clarifying scope (selected audio tracks, selected time range), compensating for the absence of any inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Cut the audio under every label to the clipboard, closing the gaps') and clearly identifies the resource (labeled regions in the selection on selected audio tracks). It distinguishes well from siblings like label_delete_regions, label_silence_regions, and label_split_regions by describing the clipboard-cut-and-close behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states setup steps ('select the audio tracks and time range first') and notes that it acts only on SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, though it references sibling tools for testing comparison, providing reasonable context without formal exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers. It discloses the timeline-closing behavior ('the labeled regions collapse rather than surviving unchanged') and operates on SELECTED tracks/selection. Not fully exhaustive (no mention of undo, permissions, or destructive permanence), but the core behavioral consequence is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, how to prepare, single-Label alternative, and post-action verification. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is well-rounded: it covers the operation, prerequisites, the sibling alternative, and post-operation behavior. Slightly more could be said about permanence/reversibility, but it's largely complete for the tool's complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameters to explain. Per rubric, 0 params earns baseline 4. The description focuses on the state prerequisites (selection) rather than parameters, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource+outcome: 'Delete the audio under every label, closing the gaps.' It distinguishes this from label_delete_audio_at (single label) and label_cut_regions (cut vs delete). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Label every unwanted stretch... then remove them all in one pass' and warns to 'select the audio tracks and time range first.' Explicitly names label_delete_audio_at as the alternative for a single label. Also tells the user to re-run label_list afterwards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the file-naming convention, skip behavior for zero-length labels, no-overwrite policy, potential length of execution, and importantly the caveat that it is not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a file-writing operation. It could note whether it mutates the project, but for an export operation this is largely sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with separate paragraphs for behavior notes and Args. The behavior paragraph is front-loaded with the core purpose. The caveat about not being live-tested is honest and valuable. Slightly verbose with the caveat sentence, but it earns its place given the trust implications.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a file-writing operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description comprehensively covers naming conventions, skip behavior, overwrite policy, runtime expectations, and reliability status. All three parameters are explained. There is minimal ambiguity remaining for an agent invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does: explains directory (absolute path to output directory), format (enumeration of wav, mp3, ogg, flac, aiff, mp4 with default), and num_channels (meaning of 1 vs 2 with default). This adds real semantic value beyond the bare parameter names and default values in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Export the audio under each label as its own file' and 'Splits a long recording into per-segment audio files.' This distinguishes it from siblings like label_export_chapters (different output type) and label_export (single file export). Verb+resource+output format is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit operational guidance: ALWAYS tell the user which directory files will be written to BEFORE calling, explains that point labels are skipped, and notes that existing files are never overwritten. This is actionable context for when and how to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive to timeline length (muting rather than deleting), states 'The labels themselves stay where they are,' and clarifies the scope (selected tracks + selection). These are the key behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether the operation is undoable, but for an edit tool this is reasonably complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact, multi-line description that front-loads the core action in the first line, then justification, then operational prerequisites. Every sentence adds meaningful value — no filler, no repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
0 params, no output schema. The description clearly explains the operation's effect (silencing labeled audio, keeping timeline length, labels remain), prerequisites (selection, selected tracks), and use cases. It doesn't explicitly describe what happens to existing silence or plugins at label boundaries, but for a 0-param mutation tool it's well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the parameter dimension is trivially satisfied. The description indicates operation scope (labeled regions in selection on selected tracks) rather than relying on parameters. Baseline 4 for 0-param tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Replace the audio under every label with silence, keeping the timeline length.' Distinguishes from siblings like label_delete_regions (removes audio, shortening), label_cut_regions, and edit_silence. The key differentiator 'keeping the timeline length' is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use: 'Use when the material must not get shorter — redacting a name, muting a noise burst in a take that has to stay in sync.' Also gives explicit operational prerequisites: acts on labeled regions within the current selection on SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS, with instructions to select tracks and time range first. This clearly separates it from region-deleting alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses experimental status, asynchronous behavior (returns job_id), language auto-detection pitfalls, retry behavior, and prerequisite cleanup. It could additionally specify whether existing labels are overwritten, but it adequately warns about cleanup requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average but each section earns its place: purpose, background behavior, language caveats, retry guidance, and cleanup steps. It is front-loaded with the main action and organized, though the language-detection warning could be tightened without losing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (experimental, asynchronous, language-sensitive) and has no output schema, so the description must explain return values and follow-up actions. It does so via job_id and monitoring instructions. It also covers the setup requirement and retry strategy. Minor gaps: no detail on label track naming or whether the project is modified in place, but overall it is thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter in detail: model_size with enumerated values, language as ISO code or None, and task with transcribe/translate semantics. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Transcribe audio and add Audacity labels at each segment timestamp.' This specifies the verb (transcribe), resource (audio), and output (labels at timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transcribe_to_file and transcribe_selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: background execution with job_id and monitoring via check_transcription_status, when to pass language explicitly, when to use task='translate', retry with this same tool, and how to clear existing labels with track_select and track_remove. This covers both when to use and what not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the synchronous nature and absence of job_id, and enumerates the specific return values (peak level, noise floor, duration, clipping status, recommendation). It omits explicit confirmation that the tool is non-destructive, though this is implied by the analysis context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of five sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose before detailing operational characteristics (synchronicity) and return values. The use of capitalization for 'SYNCHRONOUS' and 'IMPORTANT' effectively highlights critical operational constraints without adding verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description comprehensively compensates by listing all returned analysis metrics (peak level, noise floor, duration, clipping status, pipeline recommendation). It also establishes the operational context (Audacity audio loading requirement) and relationship to the broader auto_* pipeline ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description adds critical semantic context about the implicit input by specifying 'current audio track' and the prerequisite to load audio into Audacity first, effectively documenting the required application state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the specific verb 'Analyze' paired with the resource 'current audio track' and the outcome 'recommend the best pipeline to use.' It distinguishes itself from sibling analyze tools (analyze_beat_finder, analyze_contrast) by emphasizing the pipeline recommendation aspect, and from the auto_* pipelines by being the prerequisite analysis step rather than the processing itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit prerequisites with 'IMPORTANT: Load your audio into Audacity before calling this.' It distinguishes synchronous behavior from asynchronous alternatives with 'This is SYNCHRONOUS — it returns the analysis directly, no job_id needed.' It guides users toward specific sibling tools by mentioning it recommends 'which auto_ pipeline to use next.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses: async behavior ('returns a job_id immediately'), pipeline stages (DC offset > HPF > noise reduction > click removal), safety profile ('SAFE CLEANUP'), and side-effect constraints. Minor gap on error handling or idempotency details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear visual hierarchy (caps for emphasis, 'Pipeline:' and 'Args:' sections). Information is front-loaded with safety and scope. Slightly verbose formatting but every sentence provides necessary context for an async pipeline tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a 2-parameter async pipeline tool. Covers input requirements, pipeline logic, return value (job_id), monitoring mechanism, and constraints. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the immediate return value and background processing behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting both boolean parameters with semantic meaning ('Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile', 'Remove clicks/pops'), default values, and critical usage constraints linking the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool 'Remove[s] noise and artifacts WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics' and distinguishes itself from siblings with 'NO compression, NO normalize, NO LUFS' and contrasting pipeline details versus manual tools like noise_reduction or click_removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use ('when audio levels are already good'), prerequisites ('first 0.5 seconds should be room tone / silence'), and explicit alternative for monitoring ('use check_pipeline_status instead'). Also warns 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses: async behavior ('Runs in background — returns a job_id immediately'), the complete processing pipeline with specific parameters (3:1 compression, 10dB noise reduction), and concurrent usage restrictions. Deducted one point because it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is destructive/modifies files, though this is implied by 'cleanup' context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear visual hierarchy (ONE-CLICK VOCAL CLEANUP header, Pipeline section, Args section, IMPORTANT warning). Information is front-loaded with purpose, followed by implementation details, then constraints. No redundant or filler text; every sentence provides actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the async job pattern (job_id return), monitoring mechanism, and specific vocal-tuning differentiators. Could be improved by briefly describing error states or completion indicators, but sufficiently complete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage (parameter lacks description field), the description fully compensates by explaining 'remove_noise: Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile' and adding critical operational constraints about the 0.5s silence requirement. This goes beyond basic type information to explain semantics and usage impact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Professional processing for singing and studio vocals' and details the specific audio pipeline (DC offset > HPF 100Hz > noise reduction, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling cleanup tools by specifying 'Tuned for singing — presence boost for clarity, higher HPF for plosive removal,' differentiating it from auto_cleanup_interview, auto_cleanup_podcast, and auto_cleanup_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit prerequisites ('If remove_noise is True, the first 0.5 seconds should be room tone / silence'), warns against concurrent usage ('DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running'), and directs to the correct monitoring tool ('Use check_pipeline_status to monitor'). It clearly establishes when to use this versus checking status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it runs as a background job, returns a job_id for monitoring, and details the internal audio processing chain. It lacks explicit mention of whether the operation is destructive or creates new audio files, but covers the async execution model thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Information is well-structured with clear sections for behavior, technical pipeline, arguments, and warnings. The 'CREATIVE LO-FI EFFECT:' prefix is slightly redundant but functional. Each sentence provides distinct value about behavior, parameters, or constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an async pipeline tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value (job_id), references the sibling monitoring tool, documents the sole parameter fully, and describes both the technical process and artistic result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (intensity parameter has no description or enum), but the description fully compensates by documenting the valid values ('light', 'medium', 'heavy'), their semantic meanings ('subtle warmth', 'classic lo-fi', 'extreme tape sound'), and the default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a 'vintage/lo-fi sound' and distinguishes itself from generic audio effects by detailing the specific processing pipeline (HPF > LPF > bass/treble warmth > compression). The specific audio characteristics ('warm, muffled, vintage') clarify the output quality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running') and names the specific alternative tool to use instead ('use check_pipeline_status'). Also clarifies the async pattern: 'returns a job_id immediately. Use check_pipeline_status to monitor.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the stateful nature of the operation (profile is captured and stored for subsequent use by noise_reduction) and the prerequisite selection state. It could explicitly confirm whether this modifies the source audio (implied by 'Capture' but not stated).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: purpose (sentence 1), critical prerequisites (sentence 2), sibling relationship (sentence 3), and workflow explanation (sentences 4-5). The structure front-loads the urgent selection requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the operation's purpose, manual prerequisites, relationship to sibling tools, and the two-step workflow logic. No gaps remain for an agent to successfully invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, warranting the baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification since the schema is trivial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Capture') and identifies the exact resource (noise profile from the currently selected audio region). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'noise_reduction' tool by stating this tool specifically captures the profile for later use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit prerequisites are front-loaded ('IMPORTANT: Select a region of pure noise...before calling this'). It provides clear when-to-use guidance by explaining the alternative workflow where NoiseReduction captures the profile itself, helping the agent decide between immediate reduction vs. profile-based workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral constraint that this is a manual-only operation (not to be called automatically after effects/pipelines). It implies mutation of the current project file but does not mention error states, idempotency, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose, second states positive constraint, third states negative constraint. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place by preventing common misuse patterns (auto-saving).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter save operation without output schema or annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, explicit user intent requirements, and anti-patterns (auto-save). No critical information is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains 0 parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description requires no parameter clarification, and the 'current Audacity project' phrasing correctly implies the target resource is implicit rather than passed as an argument.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Save') and resource ('current Audacity project'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like project_save_as, project_open, and project_close. The scope is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use ('ONLY call this when the user explicitly asks to save') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines') guidance. The prohibition against auto-saving after effects directly references sibling effect tools and prevents incorrect invocation patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and succeeds well: it discloses async behavior ('runs in background — returns a job_id immediately'), details the complete processing pipeline (DC offset > HPF 80Hz > etc.), and specifies ACX compliance thresholds. Minor gap: does not explicitly clarify whether it modifies the source file or creates a new export.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: opens with value proposition, follows with async behavior, technical pipeline, compliance specs, parameter details, prerequisites, and usage restriction. Well front-loaded and appropriately detailed for the complexity of audio mastering.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (professional audio mastering with specific broadcast standards), single parameter, and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It explains return values (job_id), monitoring mechanism (check_pipeline_status), technical specifications, and operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only title and type). The description fully compensates by explaining the remove_noise parameter's function ('Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile'), default value, and critical prerequisite about audio content requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description immediately states 'ONE-CLICK AUDIOBOOK MASTERING: ACX/Audible compliant processing' - a specific verb+resource combination. The ACX/Audible compliance reference clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling `auto_master_music` and other cleanup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-not guidance ('DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running'), names the specific alternative tool to use instead ('use check_pipeline_status'), and states critical prerequisites ('If remove_noise is True, the first 0.5 seconds should be room tone / silence').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: discloses async background execution, immediate job_id return, detailed 6-step pipeline breakdown (including specific filter behaviors), and safety constraints ('only reduces peaks if too hot, never boosts'). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with clear visual hierarchy: one-line summary, background behavior note, numbered pipeline steps, Args section, and warning. Every sentence provides unique value; no tautology or repetition of tool name. Technical details are front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complex async pipeline with no output schema, description adequately explains monitoring via check_pipeline_status and pipeline stages. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state output file behavior (whether it overwrites source or creates new file) or return value structure beyond 'job_id'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description compensates well by listing valid enum values for style ('edm', 'hiphop', 'rock', 'acoustic', 'pop', 'classical') and explaining noise_reduce purpose ('Apply gentle noise reduction'). Defaults are specified. Minor gap: doesn't explain parameter constraints (case sensitivity, implications of style choice on specific processing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Professionally master your music track with genre-tuned settings' with specific verb (master), resource (music track), and modifier (genre-tuned). The 'ONE-CLICK' framing and detailed pipeline steps clearly distinguish this from sibling manual effect tools (compressor, limiter) and other auto_* cleanup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit concurrency constraint: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' Also clarifies async pattern: 'Runs in background — returns a job_id immediately. Use check_pipeline_status to monitor.' This directly names the alternative tool and when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It excellently discloses the critical side effect of normalize=True ('will re-peak your audio to 0 dB') and domain-specific behavior (transient preservation, RMS vs peak detection). Deducted one point because it does not explicitly state whether the operation modifies the current selection in-place or returns new audio data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement → use-case guidelines → critical warning → parameter reference. No filler text; every sentence provides actionable domain knowledge or safety warnings. Appropriate length for the complexity of 7 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (7 optional parameters, specialized audio domain, 0% schema coverage), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, domain-specific usage patterns, dangerous flag combinations with alternatives, and full parameter semantics. Absence of output schema is mitigated by clear indication that audio is modified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The Args section fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with units (dB, seconds), semantic meaning ('Level above which compression starts'), format examples ('2.0 = 2:1'), and usage context ('better for voice/podcast'), exceeding what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with specific verb-object pair ('Apply dynamic range compression') and immediate outcome ('Evens out volume differences'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like limiter or normalize through the detailed WARNING about normalize=True behavior and explicit reference to use loudness_normalize() instead for LUFS-based control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit contextual guidance for two distinct use cases ('For mastering...' vs 'For podcasts/voice...') with specific parameter values. Explicitly names an alternative tool ('Use loudness_normalize() instead') and clarifies when NOT to use certain settings ('Higher ratios... are mixing tools, not mastering tools').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses the multi-command orchestration (SelAllTracks, SelectTime, Delete/SplitDelete, marker clear), that all tracks are selected first so label tracks ripple, that the leftover marker is cleared matching Audacity's Delete-on-label behavior, and the default gap-closing behavior vs. close_gap=False leaving silence. This is complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is thorough but somewhat lengthy, running about 250+ words. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose and sibling distinction, and the Args section is well-organized. However, some redundancy exists between the prose explanation of close_gap and delete_label and the Args list, which repeats the same information. Slightly tighter could earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter composite mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains the underlying mechanism, the behavioral toggles, the side effects on label tracks and markers, and the relationship to sibling tools. Given the complexity of the operation (orchestrating multiple Audacity commands), the description fully equips an agent to use and understand this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does. index is explained as a flat label index from label_list; close_gap's effect on timeline length and shifting is described; delete_label's effect on the leftover marker is described. However, index's semantics could be slightly more explicit about whether it's zero-based, though the reference to label_list helps. Overall strong compensation for complete schema absence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: deletes audio under ONE label picked by index, and explicitly distinguishes it from label_delete (marker only) and label_delete_regions (every label, no index). It uses a specific verb+resource combination and differentiates from the two closest siblings with concrete differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description is exemplary here. It explains this is a composite operation vs. the other label_*_regions tools that wrap single Audacity commands, gives explicit when-to-use guidance (podcast/transcript editing), and even names label_delete as the alternative to remove a label without touching audio. It also clarifies the close_gap and delete_label behavioral toggles with precise consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical audio quality risks ('warbling, metallic sound') above 20 dB and the trade-off nature of aggressive settings. It could explicitly state whether the operation is destructive (modifies in-place) versus creating new audio, though the artifact warning implies modification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently structured with prerequisite workflow, risk warning with specific thresholds, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value beyond the schema. The warning is appropriately emphasized with 'WARNING:' prefix.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema coverage, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the prerequisite tool dependency, artifact risks with specific numeric thresholds, and full parameter documentation. No output schema exists, but the description appropriately focuses on the input requirements and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The Args section documents all 3 parameters with ranges (0-48, 0-24, 0-12), units (dB, bands), defaults (12, 6, 3), and semantic meaning ('How sensitive the detection is', 'Number of frequency smoothing bands'). Fully compensates for schema deficiencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the specific action 'Apply noise reduction to the selected audio' (verb + resource + target). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling get_noise_profile by stating the prerequisite workflow, and differentiates from other effect tools by specifying this is for noise cleanup specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit sequencing requirements ('You MUST call get_noise_profile first... then select the audio... then call this'). Includes detailed parameter guidance mapping dB ranges to use cases (6-12 dB for gentle, 12-20 for moderate, >20 only for extreme cases), enabling correct invocation decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description fully discloses experimental status, background execution returning a job_id, and the language auto-detection limitation. Also notes setup requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with functional headings and concise paragraphs; every sentence adds value (prerequisite, async behavior, language caution).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers setup, prerequisite, return behavior, monitoring, and language handling. No output schema, but the description provides sufficient context for invocation and response expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero descriptions, but the description's Args section fully documents model_size values, language as ISO or None, and task options, adding all necessary meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Transcribe only the currently selected audio region' – a specific verb and object that distinguishes it from sibling transcription tools like transcribe_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear prerequisite ('Select a region first') and monitoring instructions ('Use check_transcription_status'). Does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scoped wording implies the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well. It discloses the experimental status, separate setup requirement, background execution returning a job_id, rejection of existing files, and the language auto-detection pitfall. It also instructs on absolute Windows paths, which is critical for correct usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded. It opens with the purpose, followed by critical usage warnings, then a detailed but relevant parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value—path safety, background behavior, and language pitfalls are all crucial for an experimental tool. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex background transcription tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers all necessary context: setup, file path handling, monitoring via sibling tool, error on existing file, and language misidentification. It even explains retry strategy with corrective parameters. The absence of output schema is mitigated by mentioning the job_id and pointing to check_transcription_status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), but the description's 'Args' section provides detailed semantics for every parameter: absolute path format, format options, model_size options, language code meaning, and task options. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Transcribe audio and export to a subtitle or text file.' It uses a specific verb ('transcribe') and resource ('audio' to 'file'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it runs in the background and writes to a file, unlike transcribe_audio or transcribe_to_labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow guidance: ALWAYS tell the user where the file will be saved, call get_default_export_folder when no path is given, and use check_transcription_status to monitor progress. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative transcription tools like transcribe_audio or transcribe_selection, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses async behavior ('runs in background — returns a job_id immediately'), specific processing parameters (12dB noise reduction, 5:1 compression), concurrency constraints, and safety limits ('max safe level before artifacts appear'). Excellent behavioral coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place. Structure is logical: header summary → mechanism explanation → pipeline details → design intent → critical constraints → concurrency warning. No redundancy or filler text despite being multi-line.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex audio processing pipeline with no output schema, description is complete: explains return value (job_id), monitoring mechanism (check_pipeline_status), processing chain, input requirements (0.5s room tone), and concurrency limitations. No gaps remain for agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, establishing baseline 4. Description adds value by documenting the implicit processing parameters (12dB reduction, 5:1 compression, 100Hz HPF) that are hardcoded in the pipeline, helping users understand what the tool will do to their audio despite no input arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Excellent specificity: 'ONE-CLICK LIVE RECORDING CLEANUP' provides clear verb+resource, while 'Aggressive processing for noisy/field recordings' distinguishes from sibling tools like auto_cleanup_podcast or auto_cleanup_vocal. The specific pipeline chain (DC offset > HPF 100Hz > etc.) further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-not guidance: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' Also includes prerequisites ('first 0.5 seconds MUST be room tone') and monitoring instructions. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments' vs other cleanup variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
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, and it excels: it explains the implementation mechanism (selecting the label's span and split-deleting), the side effects (collateral destruction of contained labels that get re-added, partial overlaps trimmed), and reassurances (audio tracks never in selection, nothing shifts in time). This is unusually rich behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then organized into clear paragraphs covering mechanism, edge cases, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section cleanly documents the single parameter. No waste; well-structured for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description fully addresses operation semantics, edge cases (collateral deletion, partial overlap trimming), the workaround mechanism (no native Audacity command), and the alternative for audio deletion. For a single-parameter tool in a large sibling set, this is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only says 'index' is an integer), so the description must compensate. It explains the index as a 'Flat label index from label_list,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be slightly more detailed (e.g., whether it's zero-based), but the reference to label_list provides enough semantic anchor. Given 1 param at 0% coverage, this is strong compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a single label without touching the audio' — a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tool label_delete_audio_at by explicitly noting the difference (delete label only, not the audio under it). The mention of no audio tracks in selection further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent where to get the index ('Get the index from label_list') and names the alternative tool for deleting label+audio (label_delete_audio_at). It also gives detailed exclusion guidance around collateral effects on overlapping labels, which is important for deciding among label siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'DANGER' header and 'DESTROY audio' warning clearly mark destructiveness. Explains specific failure modes: 'boost by 20-30 dB, causing severe clipping and distortion.' Documents output targets (-16, -14, -11 LUFS) with domain-specific use cases (Podcast, Spotify, hip-hop).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Lengthy but well-structured with clear visual hierarchy (DANGER header, bullet points for targets). Every section serves safety or operational clarity. Slight verbosity justified by destructive nature of tool, though 'Args:' section could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a destructive audio tool with no output schema. Covers: purpose, safety risks, prerequisites (auto_analyze_audio), sibling tool relationships, valid parameter ranges, and target standards. No gaps in operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). Description fully compensates via 'Args:' section: adds semantic meaning ('Target loudness in LUFS'), valid ranges (-50 to -5), and behavioral context ('Normalize L/R channels independently', 'Treat mono as dual-mono') that schema titles lack.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opening sentence 'Normalize audio to a target perceived loudness in LUFS' provides specific verb (normalize), resource (audio), and metric (LUFS). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'normalize' (implied to be peak normalization) by specifying LUFS targeting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Exceptional guidance with explicit 'DO NOT use' and 'ONLY use' sections. Names specific alternatives: 'use normalize first' for quiet audio, 'running auto_analyze_audio to check current levels' as prerequisite, and warns against pipeline use ('pipelines already handle loudness safely'). Clear prerequisites (peaks between -6 dB and -1 dB).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses [EXPERIMENTAL] status, background execution ('returns a job_id immediately'), prerequisite setup requirements, and references monitoring mechanism. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Information-dense and well-structured with logical flow: experimental warning → usage constraints → prerequisites → execution model → monitoring → parameter details. Every sentence provides actionable guidance, though the model size enumeration adds length it is justified by the need to explain trade-offs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage for a background job tool with no output schema: explains return value (job_id), asynchronous nature, prerequisite setup, monitoring workflow via sibling tool, and parameter selection criteria. No gaps remain for agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (no 'description' field in properties). Description fully compensates by listing valid values ('tiny', 'base', 'small', 'medium', 'large-v3') and providing detailed size/accuracy trade-offs for each option (~75MB to ~3GB with performance characteristics).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Pre-download a whisper model' with specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling transcribe_audio by stating transcription tools 'handle model loading automatically' and this should only be called for explicit download requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use ('ONLY call this if the user explicitly asks to download or change the model') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT call this before transcribe_audio'). Names the specific sibling tool (check_transcription_status) for monitoring progress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains async behavior ('Runs in background — returns a job_id immediately'), detailed processing pipeline (DC offset > HPF 80Hz > NR 8dB > compression 2.5:1), and critical prerequisites ('first 0.5 seconds should be room tone / silence' when remove_noise is true). It also warns about concurrency constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Efficiently structured with visual hierarchy: header establishes purpose, async behavior is stated upfront, pipeline details justify the 'light-touch' claim, Args section compensates for schema gaps, and IMPORTANT warnings prevent misuse. No redundancy; every sentence adds value beyond the structured fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is functionally complete. It explains the return value (job_id), monitoring mechanism (check_pipeline_status), parameter defaults, and operational prerequisites. The processing pipeline transparency satisfies the complexity of this multi-stage audio tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no property descriptions), but the description fully compensates by documenting both boolean parameters with semantic meaning ('Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile' and 'Truncate long silences') plus critical usage constraints that the schema cannot express (the 0.5s silence prerequisite tied to remove_noise).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with specific verb-noun combination ('ONE-CLICK INTERVIEW CLEANUP') and immediately scopes to 'dialogue and multiple speakers.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling auto_cleanup_podcast by stating it is 'Lighter than podcast' and 'preserves natural conversation dynamics,' giving the agent clear selection criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use check_pipeline_status to monitor' and a clear exclusion rule: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' It also distinguishes from the podcast variant via processing intensity comparison, helping the agent select the correct cleanup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and succeeds: it reveals async behavior ('Runs in background — returns a job_id'), specific pipeline parameters (3:1 compression, 30ms attack), safety limits ('never boosts'), input prerequisites ('first 0.5 seconds should be room tone'), and state constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structure is logically front-loaded with purpose and safety profile, followed by technical pipeline details, Args block, and critical warnings. Every sentence earns its place—even the specific compressor ratios help distinguish from sibling cleanup tools. No redundancy detected despite length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter async tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete. It covers pre-conditions (room tone requirement), execution details (background job), pipeline specifics, and post-processing workflow (loudness_normalize), leaving no critical behavioral gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. It documents both remove_noise ('Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile. Default: True') and remove_silence ('Truncate long silences/dead air. Default: False'), including critical usage constraints for the noise profile.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'ONE-CLICK PODCAST CLEANUP: Professional broadcast-quality processing,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the exact signal chain (DC offset > HPF 80Hz > NR 12dB > compress 3:1) tuned for podcasts, and explicitly contrasts with loudness_normalize for post-processing needs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use check_pipeline_status to monitor'), when-not-to-use ('DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running'), and alternatives ('use check_pipeline_status instead'). Also clarifies safety for 'badly recorded audio' and recommends loudness_normalize for specific streaming targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the destructive mutation potential ('blowing out the audio'), mathematical relationship between current and target levels, and preprocessing side effects (DC offset removal). No contradictions with annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Despite length, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded warning addresses critical safety concerns first. Structured with clear sections (WARNING, Guidelines, Args) for scannability. No redundant fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and destructive behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It covers operational prerequisites, risk mitigation workflows, parameter semantics, and distinguishes appropriate use cases without needing an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. The 'Args:' section provides complete semantic coverage: 'peak_level_db' includes valid range (-60 to 0) and default, 'remove_dc' explains the audio processing concept, and 'stereo_independent' explains the functional purpose (fixing unbalanced recordings).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource statement: 'Normalize the selected audio to a target peak level.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'loudness_normalize' (which uses LUFS/LKFS) and 'effect_amplify' (manual gain adjustment), establishing precise scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit prerequisites ('ALWAYS check current audio levels first (use project_get_info)'), danger conditions ('If audio peaks at -30 dB... it will BOOST by 29 dB'), and contextual selection guidance (bullet points differentiating -3 dB vs -6 dB vs -1 dB use cases).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is experimental, requires separate setup, runs in the background and returns a job_id immediately, handles model loading automatically, has occasional language auto-detection issues, and saves a transcript whose location must be communicated to the user. These are all non-obvious behaviors that an agent needs to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Though the description is longer than average, every sentence adds necessary operational detail. It is well-structured: function and setup first, then background behavior, then troubleshooting/caveats, then parameter documentation. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with background execution, setup requirements, and a failure-prone language auto-detection. The description covers the full workflow: call, monitor, handle failures, correct language, and inform the user of the output location. No gaps remain given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains each parameter: model_size with listed options, language as ISO code or None, and task as transcribe/translate. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Transcribe the entire project audio using faster-whisper (local, offline).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'entire project audio' and noting not to call transcription_set_model first. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with transcribe_selection, the wording 'entire project audio' makes the scope clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: tells the user to monitor via check_transcription_status, poll every 10-15 seconds, and explicitly says 'Do NOT call transcription_set_model first.' It also instructs what to do on failure, how to handle language misdetection with language/task parameters, and what to do after completion. This goes well beyond minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xDarkzx/Audacity-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server