limiter

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.