Read a sound's parameters

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the core decoding behavior and the optional .wav side-effect ('optionally re-rendering it to a .wav'), but it does not explain error behavior, file system side effects, or return structure beyond 'parameters'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and when to use it, while 'Decode ... into its parameters' implies the return value. It lacks edge-case details like defaults or error handling, but is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 75%. The description reinforces source semantics by naming 'bfxr.net permalink' and '.bfxr file' and connects render_wav to 're-rendering it to a .wav'. However, it does not add detail about output_dir or name, so it provides only modest context beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Decode' and identifies the exact resources (bfxr.net permalink or .bfxr file) and outputs ('into its parameters', optionally a .wav). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_sound or play_sound.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use this to inspect or edit a sound the user shares.' This tells when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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