analyze_sample_data_export

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.