get_noise_profile

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.