limiter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the limiting behavior and each parameter's effect (threshold, ceiling, release, knee), which is substantive. However, it does not state whether the effect is destructive/reversible, how it interacts with selection, or what output is produced.

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?

One-purpose sentence followed by a clean, tabbed Args list. No filler, and the parameter details are front-loaded.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented and the core function is clear, so it is near-complete for a simple audio effect. But without annotations or output schema, it should also mention selection scope, undoability, and when to prefer compressor or loudness_normalize. These omissions leave modest gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates with an Args section that defines every parameter, including the default values and the industry-standard streaming ceiling note. This is precisely the semantic information the schema lacks.

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?

States the specific operation 'Apply a limiter' and defines its function as 'prevent audio from exceeding a ceiling.' The ceiling concept clearly distinguishes it from sibling dynamics tools like compressor and loudness_normalize.

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 usage through 'prevent audio from exceeding a ceiling,' which tells an agent when it applies, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria against sibling effects like compressor is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.