auto_analyze_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool selects all audio, exports it to a temp WAV, measures it, and returns diagnostics plus a recommendation. This is substantive behavioral context, though it does not clarify whether the selection persists or whether the temp file is cleaned up.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the concrete steps and outputs. Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, workflow, and return content well. It could additionally state whether the operation is non-destructive or whether any state changes persist, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description accurately reflects that the operation is automatic and project-wide. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 a specific verb ('analyze') with a clear resource ('the current project's audio') and uniquely describes its goal of recommending a cleanup pipeline. It lists exact diagnostics returned (peak/noise/clipping/click/silence-gap/dynamic-range), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis and cleanup tools.

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 implies use when you need a pre-cleanup analysis and a recommendation for which pipeline to run next. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as auto_cleanup_audio, analyze_beat_finder, or analyze_sample_data_export. The routing 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.