read_audio_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the return scope (format, size, loop, bitrate) and the source (.import config), but does not state whether it is read-only or mention error behavior for missing/invalid paths. As a read tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is partially mitigated by the verb 'read', but more explicit context would be better.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the specific data fields. Every word provides value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers what is read and from where. However, it leaves slight ambiguity about whether the path points to the audio file or the .import file, and it does not explain the return format or error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the path refers to an audio file and that the tool reads from its associated .import config, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This extra context helps resolve how the path is used.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read audio file info' and specifies the source 'from .import config'. It identifies the exact pieces of information (format, size, loop, bitrate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_audio_player and read_import_config.

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: use this tool when you need audio file metadata from the .import config. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as read_import_config or read_audio_player, leaving the boundary only vaguely implied.

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