MCP Audacity
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.0
- Disambiguation1/5
Over 100 raw_* tools share the identical boilerplate description and overlap with curated equivalents (raw_import_audio vs project_import_audio, raw_save vs project_save, raw_play_stop vs transport_play, raw_select vs select_region). Edit tools like edit_split_cut, edit_split_delete, edit_cut, and edit_delete have subtle distinctions that are easy to confuse, and check_transcription_status vs check_pipeline_status are nearly interchangeable from an agent's perspective.
Naming Consistency2/5The curated tools mostly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (edit_split, track_add, label_list, project_save), but the raw_* set breaks conventions with missing separators (raw_beatsand_measures, raw_minutesand_seconds), camelCase (raw_record2nd_choice), and awkward concatenations (raw_sel_cursor_stored_cursor). The auto_cleanup_* family adds five near-identically-named variants, and transcribe_audio sits awkwardly beside transcription_set_model.
Tool Count1/5253 tools is an extreme count that far exceeds the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. The raw_* wrappers alone number over 100 and duplicate much of the curated surface, meaning the effective tool set an agent must navigate is bloated beyond practical use even for a full-featured DAW.
Completeness4/5The curated surface covers the full audio lifecycle: project management, track operations, selection/cursor control, editing, effects, generation, analysis, labels, transport, noise reduction, loudness, and transcription. Minor gaps include undo/redo existing only as raw_* wrappers, no curated MIDI export, and transcription tools still marked experimental.
Average 3.8/5 across 245 of 253 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, whether the effect is destructive, or how it interacts with the selection. No annotations (e.g., destructiveHint) provide additional clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal and to the point, but it lacks structural organization (e.g., sections or parameter explanations). It is concise without being overly verbose, but could be better structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides insufficient context to understand how the parameters interact or what the effect does beyond a generic statement. With zero schema coverage, it is incomplete for a user to effectively use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter names are listed with defaults but their meanings and impact on the effect are not explained. The schema also lacks descriptions, leaving the user without any semantic understanding of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Apply wahwah effect' and the target 'selected audio'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function, though it does not elaborate on what the wahwah effect entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this effect versus similar effects (e.g., phase, tremolo). There is no mention of suitable contexts or conditions that would favor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does warn that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state' and calls itself a 'Static no-argument Audacity action.' However, it does not explain what dialog might appear or what project state could change, leaving meaningful behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but the first sentence is vague and internally inconsistent with the schema, and the second sentence packs an ambiguous side-effect warning with an unexplained instruction to inspect a command name. The information is not effectively structured or fully earned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This no-argument action has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral guide. It fails to say what 'Select' actually does, what audacity command it maps to, what side effects are possible, or how to obtain the command name it tells the agent to inspect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters normally warrant a baseline of 4, but the description actively confuses the situation by saying 'based on parameters' while also describing the tool as 'no-argument.' The mention of inspecting 'the command name first' implies a parameter that does not exist, so the description misleads rather than clarifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Select:' which basically restates the tool name, then says 'Modify selection based on parameters' even though the schema has zero parameters. It never specifies what kind of selection is modified or how, and it does not distinguish raw_select from sibling tools like select_all, select_region, or select_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use raw_select versus the many select_* and raw_* siblings. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is unclear since the tool takes no arguments and no command-name parameter appears in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply EQ curve' – a mutation – but doesn't mention whether it's destructive, whether a selection is required, whether it affects the entire clip, or describe any side effects. This is a significant omission for a processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. It front-loads the purpose but repeats parameter defaults that are already in the schema, and lacks substance. No unnecessary verbosity, but also no valuable detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to cover important context: what happens if no audio is selected, what curve presets are available, how the filter length affects sound, and whether the operation is undoable. An agent would have to guess before invoking it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: length is specified as an odd number in range 21–8191, and curve_name is identified as a preset name. However, it doesn't list valid curve names or explain how length affects the result. Partial compensation but not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Apply') and target ('EQ curve' to selected audio). It distinguishes from other effects like high-pass/low-pass filters by naming 'EQ curve' specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like raw_graphic_eq.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or that it should be used instead of other EQ-related tools. The description is entirely silent on usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It identifies signal type, amplitude, and duration, but not whether the operation creates a new track, replaces the selection, is destructive, or what the observable outcome is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and scannable, but the first sentence is a tautology and the defaults duplicate the input schema. It is concise without being wasteful, but not every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many generation siblings, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what side effects occur, where the noise goes, or what a successful call looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema has no descriptions or enums. The Args block adds the allowed noise_type values, the amplitude 0-1 range, and duration units, fully compensating for the schema's silence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line 'Generate noise' restates the tool name and gives no distinguishing context. It doesn't explain whether this inserts a clip, creates a track, or how it differs from sibling generation tools like generate_tone, generate_chirp, or generate_dtmf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_tone or generate_chirp. The argument list implies how to call it, but not when it should be selected or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses potential side effects by mentioning it may open a dialog or change project state, which is a form of transparency. However, the phrasing 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not clearly specify the exact behavior, reducing the clarity of the side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short, but it includes redundant phrases like 'Static no-argument Audacity action' which repeats information already implied by the tool name and schema. The instruction 'inspect the command name first' is also unnecessary and adds noise without contributing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact. It mentions opening a dialog but does not explain what the dialog does, how it affects the project, or what the expected outcome is. The caveat about state changes is left ambiguous, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the tool has no parameters, the schema fully covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens the Label Editor dialog, which is a specific action. However, the added caveat 'May open a dialog or change project state; inspect the command name first' introduces ambiguity and contradicts the initial clarity, slightly reducing the score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other label-related tools or alternatives. It lacks context about the intended use case or scenarios where this tool is preferred, making it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful mutation-side-effect information. However, the 'optional reload' behavior is unexplained, and the overall behavior remains vague for a tool that appears to mutate preferences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. No filler is present, though the final 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat cryptic and could be more concretely phrased.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations, no output schema, and a potentially state-changing action, the description is too thin. It does not explain what preference is set, what 'optional reload' means, what the return behavior is, or how an agent should safely verify the command before invoking it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, which normally warrants a baseline of 4. But the description says 'Set a preference value (with optional reload),' implying parameters that the schema does not expose. This contradiction confuses rather than clarifies parameter semantics, so the description fails to add useful meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Set a preference value') and is distinguishable from the sibling raw_get_preference. However, the phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' introduces ambiguity about what value is being set and how, so it is not perfectly clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_get_preference or other raw_set_* tools. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is a safety hint, but it does not clarify selection criteria or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that making a new selection replaces any prior selection, that the operation is non-destructive, how the tool handles invalid ranges (end before start), or what state changes occur beyond the selection itself. The minimal prose conveys intent but omits the behavioral context an agent needs to anticipate side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument block is tight, with every line earning its place given the 0% schema coverage. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema's parameter names but adds necessary units and meaning, so it is justified. Overall it is efficient with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core invocation adequately. What is missing is the relationship to the many select* siblings and the behavioral consequence that an effect applied afterward will target this region. These gaps are meaningful for correct tool selection and sequencing, so the description is minimally viable rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does by attaching meaning and units to both parameters ('Start time in seconds', 'End time in seconds'), which the schema properties lack. However, it omits constraints such as whether end must be greater than start, whether values are absolute timeline positions, or how out-of-range values are handled. It provides enough to make a plausible call but not full semantic clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Select a time region in the current track(s)' — which clearly identifies a timeline-range selection scoped to existing tracks. The time-based nature distinguishes it from track-level siblings like select_tracks and select_clip, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. Minor deduction because the differentiation relies on inference rather than an explicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage hint is 'Many effects operate on the selection,' which weakly implies this tool is a prerequisite before applying effects. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose select_region versus select_all, select_none, select_tracks, select_clip, select_zero_crossing, or cursor_set_position — a decision the agent must make among many closely related siblings. This is effectively no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core in-place mutation (audio is overwritten with silence) but omits important behavioral traits: whether the action is reversible, whether it affects all tracks or only selected tracks, what happens to the selection afterward, and whether it preserves duration. For a destructive edit operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is efficiently worded, though it leans toward under-specification rather than rich conciseness; still, the structure itself is exemplary for what it covers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters, the tool operates in a crowded namespace of edit tools and performs a destructive mutation with no annotations or output schema to supplement the description. The one-line description does not resolve key ambiguities such as track scope, reversibility, or how it differs from edit_delete and truncate_silence, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke it appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter information for the description to add. The description appropriately says nothing about arguments because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('replace') and resource ('the selected audio'), with the 'with silence' qualifier making the result unmistakable and distinguishing it from deletion or trimming. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_delete or truncate_silence, so it falls short of a perfect score, but the core purpose is clearly conveyed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar edit tools in the sibling list (edit_delete, edit_trim, edit_cut, truncate_silence, label_silence_regions). No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the count range (1-128), but it never states whether the selected audio is replaced, whether the operation is destructive, whether it is undoable, or what the resulting audio should look like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the main action, and contains little filler. The default value is repeated from the schema, which is slightly redundant, but overall the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It defines the operation and parameter but omits the behavioral contract: what happens to the original selection, whether the effect is destructive, and what result the agent should expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no parameter description and no minimum/maximum, so the description's 'Number of times to repeat (1-128)' adds meaningful constraint and semantic context. It could be slightly clearer about whether count means additional copies beyond the original, but it compensates for the schema gap reasonably well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a concrete action ('Repeat') and a resource ('selected audio') with a user-specified count. It is understandable on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as edit_duplicate or other effect tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisite like selecting audio first, and no exclusions. The name and category imply the use case, but the description does not explicitly establish it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains parameters and defaults but does not describe what happens when the tool is invoked—for example, whether it creates a new track, replaces selection, or adds audio to an existing track. The description is limited to the input parameters and does not cover the output or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence stating the action, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with defaults. No fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for practical use. It does not mention preconditions or the effect of the tool—for instance, whether it creates a new track, requires a selection, or overwrites existing audio. It also lacks differentiation from the many sibling generation tools. Without output schema or annotations, the agent lacks key context on how the result is delivered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: waveform lists allowed values, start_freq and end_freq are in Hz, start_amp and end_amp are amplitudes 0-1, and duration is in seconds. It adds meaning for all 6 parameters, though it could be more explicit about constraints like the exact waveform values. Overall, it makes the parameters clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate a chirp (frequency sweep),' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_tone and generate_noise by name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like generate_tone or generate_noise. The description does not mention scenarios where a chirp is appropriate, nor does it give exclusions or comparisons. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value with parameter domains and the 'Square (no alias)' variant, but it omits the most consequential behaviors: whether the tone creates a new track, overwrites the selected audio, inserts at the cursor, or requires an active track. These are critical for correct invocation and are entirely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A one-sentence lead followed by four terse argument lines, each carrying distinct information (units, ranges, allowed values, defaults). It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Minor deduction for the mechanical 'Args:' docstring format, which is structured but not ideal for AI consumption.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, this description is the sole source of information, yet it covers only parameters and never explains the operation's effect on the project. Whether the call is destructive, whether it needs a selection, and where the tone lands are all missing. A generative audio tool needs that context to be safe to invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies units (Hz, seconds), valid ranges (1-20000, 0-1), the four permitted waveform values, and defaults for all four parameters. This fully covers what the schema lacks. It stops short of a 5 only because it adds no nuance about validation or out-of-range behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Generate a tone signal' states a specific verb and resource, and the Args list (Sine, Square, Sawtooth) makes the resource concrete. It is reasonably distinguishable from generate_noise, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from generate_chirp, which also produces a tone-like signal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Closely related siblings exist (generate_noise, generate_chirp, generate_dtmf, generate_rhythm_track), and the description neither mentions them nor gives selection criteria. An agent must guess which generator to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of what happens if no project is open, whether errors are returned, what the response structure looks like, or how each info_type behaves. An agent has no behavioral guarantees beyond the inferred read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter definition. It wastes no words. The docstring-style 'Args:' formatting is slightly awkward for an MCP tool description but acceptable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description is the only source of contract information. It lists the six info types but does not describe what data each returns, the output format, or failure behavior. For a multi-mode retrieval tool, this is a significant completeness gap; an agent cannot predict the return shape for Tracks versus Labels, for example.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description coverage and no enum for info_type, so the description must compensate — and it does, by enumerating the six valid values: Tracks, Clips, Envelopes, Labels, Boxes, Commands. This is essential information the structured schema lacks. However, the description stops at listing values and does not explain what each info_type returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Get information about the current project'), and identifies this as a project-scoped read tool. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like track_get_info by the project-level scope, though no alternative is named explicitly. Minor gap: 'current project' is not precisely defined, and there is no explicit differentiation from other project_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The info_type list hints at the six retrieval modes but the description never states when this should be called instead of track_get_info or other info-gathering tools, nor does it explain what 'current project' means or whether a project must be open first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says it applies a distortion effect. It does not explain whether the operation modifies audio destructively, requires a selection, affects the whole project, or can be undone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a compact parameter list. It repeats defaults already present in the schema, but overall it contains no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits accepted distortion_type values, does not clarify selection prerequisites, and provides no behavioral or return information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter documentation in the description matters. It usefully adds the dB range for threshold_db and restates defaults, but distortion_type is only described as 'Type of distortion' with no accepted values beyond the default, leaving a meaningful gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear action and resource: 'Apply distortion effect to the selected audio.' This identifies the tool's function precisely and distinguishes it from effect_amplify, effect_reverb, and other effect siblings by name. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'to the selected audio' implies that the tool should be used when a distortion effect is desired on an active audio selection. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what alternatives exist, or what prerequisites apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply' without stating whether the effect is destructive, whether it replaces the current selection or creates a new track, if it can be undone, or what the output format is. It also does not clarify the relationship between wet/dry gain or 'wet_only'. This is inadequate for a complex mutating effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a neatly formatted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key information and does not waste words. The parameter list is clear and readable, making it easy to scan. It could be improved by grouping or highlighting the most important parameters, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of the effect, the prerequisites (selected audio), what happens to the existing audio, or any side effects. An agent would need to know whether reverb is applied as a replacement or as a new track, and whether it is reversible. The description leaves critical context unresolved, making it only minimally sufficient for simple invocations with defaults.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 10 parameters with ranges (0-100) and units (ms, dB) plus defaults, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what each parameter does conceptually (e.g., what 'room_size' affects, how 'pre_delay' impacts the sound). The names give some intuition, but for parameters like 'hf_damping' or 'tone_low', an agent would need more insight to set sensible values. The description offers basic semantics but not deep guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Apply reverb effect to the selected audio.' This is a clear verb+resource combination. The tool name 'effect_reverb' is distinct from the many sibling effect tools (echo, distortion, wahwah, etc.), so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other effects (e.g., echo, phaser) or any prerequisites. The description does not mention that the user must have an audio selection, nor does it explain that reverb is typically applied to add space or depth. It also does not mention any constraints or conditions. This is a clear gap for a 10-parameter effect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavior. It explains that labels are created at regular intervals and that they will be numbered (via the label_text parameter), but it does not specify how existing labels are handled, whether the selection is used as the range, or if labels are placed on the label track. The description omits side effects and any details about the creation process beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the parameter descriptions are compact yet informative. No fluff or redundancy is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential contextual details for an agent to use it correctly. It does not specify the label track requirement, the behavior when no selection exists, or how the labels are positioned relative to the selection start/end. There is no mention of output or confirmation, and the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context to all three parameters: 'interval' is clarified as time in seconds, 'adjust' is explained as fitting the selection evenly, and 'label_text' notes that labels will be numbered. This goes beyond the schema's type/default information, providing practical understanding. However, it could elaborate on the exact numbering scheme or how 'adjust' interacts with the interval, so it is not perfect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create labels at regular time intervals across the selection or project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'regular time intervals' distinguishes it from other label tools. However, the phrase 'across the selection or project' is ambiguous about whether it applies to the entire project or just the current selection, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like label_add_batch or label_add_at. It lacks context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred. The only implicit hint is that it creates multiple labels at regular intervals, but no explicit usage instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the tool may open a dialog or change project state, but this is vague and lacks specifics (e.g., what dialog, what state change, whether it is destructive). The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' implies the description is incomplete and the agent must seek external information, which reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, though the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat redundant or obscure, adding a small amount of noise. Overall it earns its place with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and gives a warning about side effects, but leaves gaps. For a no-argument tool with no output schema, the description should fully explain what the effect does, whether it requires a selection, and the nature of any dialog or state change. The warning is too vague, and the 'inspect command name' suggestion indicates the description is not self-sufficient. An agent would need to look elsewhere to fully understand behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema already states this. The description adds a clarifying 'static no-argument' note, which reinforces the empty schema. Since there is nothing else to document, this is sufficient. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: generate a plucked tone effect. It also identifies itself as a static no-argument Audacity action. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like effect_reverb or generate_tone, but the specific 'pluck' name and action make it distinguishable. Adequate but not fully explicit about differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a plucked tone effect is desired versus other effects). The warning about possibly opening a dialog or changing project state gives some caution, but it doesn't specify preconditions, selection requirements, or when not to use it. The hint to 'inspect the command name first' is cryptic and not actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful risks: it may open a dialog or change project state, and it warns the agent to verify before invoking. However, the disclosure is hedged ('may') with no specifics about which dialog, what state changes, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the side-effect caution; every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for the redundant 'Scrub:' prefix that repeats the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, argument count, and potential side effects. It falls short by not explaining what scrubbing concretely does and by giving an instruction ('inspect the command name first') without telling the agent how to execute it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by confirming this is a static no-argument action, assuring the agent that the empty schema is intentional rather than incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Scrub through audio') plus the trait 'static no-argument Audacity action', so it goes beyond a tautology. However, 'scrub' is left undefined and the description does not differentiate it from closely related siblings like raw_seek; the 'Scrub:' prefix also redundantly restates the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no comparison with alternatives. The only advice, 'inspect the command name first', is a cautionary note rather than a routing rule, and the description never says when to choose raw_scrub over raw_seek, cursor novigation, or transport tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, such as whether the previous selection is replaced or extended, or whether it affects multiple clips. With no annotations, the agent lacks information about the tool's read/write nature and impact on the project state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and target without ambiguity, making it easy to read and process.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks context about the selection behavior (e.g., does it deselect others? Does it work on the active track?). While the tool name provides some hints, the description alone does not fully equip an agent to understand the implications of invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. It adds no extra meaning beyond the empty schema, but since there are no parameters, this is adequate. The score reflects a neutral baseline without missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (select) and the target (clip under cursor), distinguishing it from other selection tools like select_all or select_none. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'clip' in the context of the application, though it is likely understood.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative selection methods (e.g., select_all, select_region). The description does not mention any preconditions or contexts where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a label is added, but does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing label at the same range is overwritten, whether a label track is created, or whether the new label becomes selected. This leaves the agent to infer important behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line contributes either the core action or parameter semantics, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only three parameters, the description covers the action and parameter meanings well. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral side effects, and is situated among many label-related siblings. This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent needing to select and invoke it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by adding units ('in seconds') for start and end and clarifying the default behavior of text ('Default: empty'). This is valuable beyond the raw schema. It stops short of specifying constraints like end > start or acceptable value ranges, but it meaningfully aids parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action, 'Add a label at a specific time range,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It also signals that the label is positioned by explicit time bounds, distinguishing it from label_add, which likely uses the current selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with nearby siblings like label_add_batch or label_regular_intervals, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as label_add, label_add_batch, or label_regular_intervals. It only implies usage through the action statement; there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary action and output, but does not mention whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the file is created if absent, or what the tool returns after export. For a write-oriented tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and a terse parameter explanation immediately after. No words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool, the description gives the essential information: what is exported, the output format, the required path, and that the path must be absolute. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should also clarify overwrite/create behavior and the return value, both of which are left implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section explains that 'path' is an absolute path for the output labels file, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Path' title. For the single required parameter, this is sufficient and helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Export all labels') and a specific output ('a text file'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling export tools like label_export_chapters or label_export_audio_segments, though the 'all labels' and 'text file' wording provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as label_export_chapters, label_export_audio_segments, or project_export_labels. The intended use is only implied by the name and one-line description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, so the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'close' without indicating whether the action prompts for saving, discards unsaved changes, or has other destructive consequences. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that closes a project, the description lacks essential context: what happens to unsaved changes, whether it is reversible, and any side effects. Without an output schema or annotations, this is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (close) and the resource (current Audacity project). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like project_save, project_new, or project_open, which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as saving before closing, or whether unsaved changes might be lost. The user must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says labels are exported to a text file; it does not disclose whether the file is overwritten, what format or extension is expected, what happens with no labels, or whether the operation has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and a minimal parameter explanation. There is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool, the essentials are present, but the lack of file-format, overwrite, and alternative-tool guidance leaves ambiguity. The presence of the sibling 'label_export' tool makes this incompleteness more noticeable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter, so the description's 'Absolute path for the exported labels file' adds meaningful semantics. It clarifies the required input, though it does not mention file extension or directory requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Export all labels to a text file.' This distinguishes it from audio-export and processing tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling 'label_export'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus label_export, label_export_chapters, or label_export_audio_segments. The description implies a simple export use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., replacing current project, prompts to save), error behavior for missing files, or any prerequisites beyond existence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement and a single argument definition. All content earns its place with no unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple open operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as whether it loads into the current session, interactions with unsaved changes, or return behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more explanation would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the parameter meaning beyond the schema: 'Absolute path to the .aup3 project file' adds specificity about path type and file extension, which the schema does not provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens an existing Audacity project file (.aup3), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from project_new by using 'existing', though it does not explicitly compare to siblings like raw_open or project_import_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_open or project_import_audio. The description focuses only on the action, not on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises to 'inspect the command name first,' acknowledging potential side effects. However, the warning is vague about what exactly happens (dialog vs. state change) and does not explain the nature of the information shown or any side effects in detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: two sentences plus a brief warning. It front-loads the purpose (show info) and then provides behavioral cautions. There is no filler or repetitive content beyond the 'MidiDeviceInfo:' prefix, which is slightly redundant but not harmful. The structure is efficient for an agent reading it quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does and a warning about potential side effects. However, it does not specify what information is returned or how the agent might verify the output, and the 'inspect the command name first' advice is cryptic. For a tool that may change state, more clarity on what triggers side effects would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage (vacuously). The description adds 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which reinforces the empty schema but does not provide any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already known. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the purpose clearly: 'Show information about MIDI devices' — a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like raw_device_info (general device info) and raw_input_device/raw_output_device, though it does not explicitly name them. The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' adds clarity about how it is invoked.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes that it is a static no-argument action, which says nothing about the appropriate context or how it differs from related device-information tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful side-effect risk by stating that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state.' However, it remains vague about what state changes may occur, whether they are reversible, and what dialog would appear; the advice to inspect the command name first pushes responsibility back onto the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core function. The 'SetEnvelope:' prefix is somewhat redundant with the tool name but serves as the Audacity command label, and the safety caveat is kept to a single compact sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the low parameter count, key behavioral questions remain unanswered: what 'envelope value' refers to, what 'specified time' means when there are no arguments, and what project-state changes to expect. The instruction to inspect the command name first is a stopgap rather than actual operational context, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the input schema already fully defines invocation. The description's 'no-argument' claim aligns with the empty schema, and no additional parameter documentation is necessary, so the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Adjust the envelope value at a specified time,' and identifies the underlying Audacity action as 'SetEnvelope.' This is specific enough to separate it from the many raw_* siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any one alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is mentioned. 'Inspect the command name first' is a generic caution rather than a usable usage rule, and the description does not explain under what selection or project state this action is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful for a mutating raw command. However, the warning is generic and doesn't specify which dialog, what state changes, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the purpose, but the opening 'Toggle:' is redundant, and the final instruction 'inspect the command name first' is vague and not fully actionable. It is concise but not every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core action and a side-effect caveat. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'focus' means, what dialog might open, or how project state could change. The 'inspect first' instruction implies more information is needed than the description alone provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this with 'no-argument Audacity action.' This makes it clear that no arguments should be supplied, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific action and target: 'Toggle focus on the current track.' This distinguishes it from sibling toggles like raw_zoom_toggle or raw_track_mute. However, the lead 'Toggle:' is redundant with the tool name, and the vague framing 'Toggle focus' could be clearer about what exactly changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Static no-argument Audacity action' implies invocation constraints but not selection criteria. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a usage condition, and offers little directional help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the 0-based track index and count, but does not disclose whether this replaces the current selection, extends it, or what happens with invalid indices. These are meaningful gaps for a selection-mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The Args section cleanly explains both parameters without redundant prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the core calling semantics are present, but behavioral context is incomplete given the lack of annotations and output schema. An agent still has to guess whether selection is additive or replacing and what response to expect, so this is at the minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'track' is defined as the starting 0-based index and 'count' as the number of tracks to select. This adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema, though constraints on valid ranges are not described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Select') and resource ('tracks') with an explicit selection method ('by index'). It is clearly a selection tool from the sibling family, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with track_select or other select_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_all, select_none, or track_select. The description implies index-based selection, but it does not state exclusions or provide context for choosing it over sibling selection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says properties are 'set' and does not explain whether null/omitted properties are left unchanged, whether this affects the selected track or only the indexed track, or what happens with an invalid index. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by a clean Args list. Every line contributes parameter semantics, and there is no filler or repetition of schema data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning well but omits key contextual details: partial-update behavior, null-property semantics, error behavior, and return value. It is adequate for a simple call but leaves meaningful uncertainty for an autonomous agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives useful semantics for all six parameters, including 0-based track indexing, gain range in dB (-36 to 36), and pan range (-1.0 left to 1.0 right). However, it does not clarify the meaning of null/omitted optional parameters, which is an important gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('properties of a track by index'), and enumerates the exact properties: name, gain, pan, mute, and solo. This helps distinguish it from single-property sibling tools like raw_track_gain or track_mute, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_mute, track_select, or raw_track_pan. The phrase 'by index' implies one differentiator, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the primary action but does not disclose what happens if playback is already active, whether the cursor is moved, or how this differs from a play/stop toggle like raw_play_stop. This leaves meaningful ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single eight-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero filler. For a command of this simplicity, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 core invocation is adequately described. However, the absence of usage guidance and edge-case behavior leaves the description incomplete for an agent choosing among many playback-related siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies. No parameter explanation is needed or possible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Start'), resource ('playback'), and scope ('from the current cursor position'), clearly conveying what the tool does. The cursor-position qualifier implicitly differentiates it from transport_play_region, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus closely related playback siblings such as transport_play_region, raw_play_stop, transport_pause, or transport_record. An agent must infer usage context entirely from the name and the minimal description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It only states that a region is played, but does not clarify whether playback stops automatically, if the current playback is interrupted, or if any selection is modified. This lack of detail could lead to unexpected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and structured, using only two sentences to state the purpose and parameters. There is no unnecessary information, and it is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple playback command, the description is fairly complete, but it omits details about return values or side effects. Since there is no output schema, it is not clear if the tool returns any status or error information. Additionally, it does not explain the relationship to the current cursor position or selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'time in seconds' to each parameter, which is not present in the schema. It clearly defines start and end as absolute timestamps, though it does not specify whether they are project-relative or selection-relative, which is a minor gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Play') and the resource ('a specific time region'), which distinguishes it from transport_play that plays the whole project. However, it does not explicitly mention that it plays only the given interval and stops at the end, which could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transport_play, transport_stop, or selection-based playback. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or relationships to other transport commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that pitch is preserved (a key behavioral trait) and gives percent range semantics. However, it doesn't disclose that altering tempo changes the duration of audio, whether the operation is destructive to the original clip, whether it affects clip boundaries or waveform data, or how it handles selections vs. whole clips. For an effect that modifies audio, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: one title line plus one parameter explanation. The key behavioral point (without changing pitch) is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args section is terse and useful. Minor credit loss because the title/tool name and description overlap, and 'without changing pitch' is the only behavioral context beyond the parameter spec.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter effect tool, the description handles the parameter semantics well and states the core behavior. But it lacks any context about what the operation does to the audio file (duration change, destructuring), what the user should expect, or how to undo/revert. Given there's no output schema and no annotations, an agent has to infer side effects. The presence of sibling effect_change_speed and effect_change_pitch suggests this tool needs more differentiation to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has only one param 'percent' with default 0 and 0% coverage, so description must compensate. It does: explains percent is a percentage change, gives a valid range (-95 to 3000), and provides concrete examples for both positive and negative values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't clarify whether 0 means no change or is invalid, but the range and examples largely compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool changes tempo of selected audio while preserving pitch, using a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('tempo of the selected audio'). It is well-differentiated from siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_speed by explicitly noting pitch is preserved. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with effect_change_speed, which also changes tempo-like timing, so a very minor distinction gap exists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage on selected audio ('Change the tempo of the selected audio'), so an agent knows selection is a prerequisite. It provides percent semantics with examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over effect_change_speed or effect_change_pitch, nor does it describe what qualifies as selected audio or how selection is made. The implied usage is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives basic function but omits key behavioral details: it does not mention whether the effect modifies the selected audio destructively, whether it applies to the current selection or entire track, or any side effects. With no annotations, these missing details leave the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-structured, with a single purpose sentence followed by clear parameter explanations and defaults. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core function and parameters, but lacks context about the scope of the effect (e.g., applies to selected audio) and does not mention any output or return value. For a simple filter this is adequate, but an agent might need to infer how it integrates with the editing workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: frequency is the cutoff in Hz, and rolloff is the steepness with specified allowed values, including defaults. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not elaborate on how these values affect sound quality or the filter's response.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('low-pass filter'), and the purpose is unambiguous: it removes high frequencies above a cutoff. This distinguishes it from other effects like high-pass filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a low-pass filter is preferred over high-pass or equalization). The description merely states what it does without indicating typical use cases or scenarios where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents parameter defaults and ranges but does not state that applying the effect modifies the selected audio in place, whether the operation is destructive/undoable, or any processing side effects. 'Apply ... to the selected audio' only weakly implies the behavioral impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a clean, aligned argument list. Each line carries unique semantic information (range, unit, constraint, default) with no filler. The list is lengthy but justified by the six-parameter signature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The main invocation complexity — six optional parameters — is fully documented, which is substantial. However, with no annotations or output schema to fill gaps, the description omits behavioral context (in-place modification, undo behavior) and usage context (when to pick this effect over alternatives). Adequate for parameter entry but incomplete for confident tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by giving every parameter meaningful semantics: ranges (2-24 even-only, 0.01-40, -100 to 100), endpoint meanings (0=dry, 255=wet), units (Hz, degrees, percent), and defaults for all six parameters. This far exceeds the bare titles and defaults in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Apply phaser effect to the selected audio' — making the tool's function immediately clear. The target scope ('selected audio') is useful, and the effect type distinguishes it from sibling effect_* tools. However, it relies on the tool name for the exact effect identity and does not elaborate beyond a single clause.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as effect_wahwah, effect_tremolo, or effect_distortion. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., that audio must be selected first). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and generic effect categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions generation but does not disclose side effects, such as whether a new track is added to the project, whether existing audio/selection is affected, or what the output/return value is. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear Args list. Each line is informative. It repeats defaults already present in the schema, but only slightly, and the structure makes the constraints easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent does not know whether this generates a new audio track, replaces the current selection, or returns a result. It documents parameters well but omits the operational behavior needed to call it confidently in a project context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all four parameters, including valid ranges (30-300, 1-32, 1-1000) and allowed values for rhythm_pattern. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it does not explain what 'Swing' versus 'Uniform' means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a click/rhythm track.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like generate_tone, generate_noise, generate_chirp, and generate_dtmf, even without reading their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_tone or generate_chirp. The purpose is implied by the name and resource, but there is no explicit context or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does warn that the action may open a dialog or change project state. However, that disclosure is undermined by calling the action 'Static', and it never clarifies when side effects occur or whether they are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The later caveats are useful, though 'Static' and 'may change project state' are in tension, and 'inspect the command name first' is imprecise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool, it covers purpose, argument count, and a side-effect warning, which makes basic invocation possible. It omits what return value or dialog behavior should be expected and under what conditions project state changes, leaving only an adequate but incomplete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema and description fully align by noting 'no-argument'. No additional parameter-level explanation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb and resource: 'Display information about Audacity.' Also identifies the operation as a simple no-argument action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from informational siblings like raw_help or raw_manual, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance about when to call raw_about versus raw_help, raw_manual, or raw_quick_help. The 'no-argument' note is a calling constraint, not usage selection guidance, and the final warning to inspect the command name is caution rather than a concrete usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name. However, it does not specify what side effects might occur, under what conditions, or the nature of the cursor movement (e.g., does it wrap at boundaries?). The warning is generic and does not fully inform the agent of the tool's behavioral traits beyond the basic movement. A score of 3 reflects partial disclosure with room for more specificity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences. The primary action is front-loaded: 'Move the cursor left by one unit.' The following sentence adds essential contextual warnings without excessive length. It avoids redundancy and every phrase serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless action. A score of 4 reflects strong conciseness, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so completeness depends solely on the description. The description covers the basic function and alerts the agent to potential side effects, but it leaves ambiguity about 'one unit' (e.g., pixel, sample, grid unit) and does not explain the exact behavioral outcome. Given the large set of sibling cursor tools, agents might benefit from more context on how this differs from short/long jumps. The description is sufficient for a simple action but not fully comprehensive. A score of 3 reflects adequate coverage with notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information. It correctly states 'no-argument,' reinforcing the schema. Thus, a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Move the cursor left by one unit.' It identifies the resource (cursor) and the verb (move), and adds the quantifier 'one unit.' While the name 'raw_cursor_left' already implies movement, the description specifies the exact scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like raw_cursor_short_jump_left or raw_cursor_long_jump_left, but the 'one unit' phrasing provides some distinction. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferable to raw_cursor_right, raw_cursor_short_jump_left, or other cursor movement tools. The cautionary note 'inspect the command name first' is a general safety advisory, not usage guidance. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool may 'open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful warning about side effects. However, it's vague about what dialog or state changes occur, and it doesn't address unsaved changes or whether the exit is immediate vs. prompt-driven. The 'inspect the command name first' clause adds caution but not concrete behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a cautionary note, though the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat vague and doesn't clearly indicate what action the agent should take. Overall, it's concise and mostly well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument exit command, the description covers the basic purpose, side-effect potential, and static nature. However, it omits details like whether unsaved work will be prompted for, or if there's any prerequisite (e.g., a project must be open). The odd 'inspect the command name first' instruction doesn't fill this gap. Since there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should be more explicit about the action's consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, which gives a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' explicitly confirming that no arguments are expected. This is a small but useful addition for an agent that might otherwise look for hidden inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Close all project windows and exit Audacity.' This makes the operation unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like project_close or transport_stop, which could also involve closing or stopping, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' implies caution but doesn't provide condition-based routing or mention alternative commands. The description relies on the agent's inference that 'exit' is only needed when shutting down Audacity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state 'May open a dialog or change project state', which hints at side effects, but it is non-committal and does not specify the exact behavior or whether it is destructive. The extra advice to 'inspect the command name first' is unclear and does not add substance. This is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by a technical note and a caution. It is concise and well-structured. The caution 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic but does not bloat the text. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a no-argument command with no output schema, the description covers the essential action but leaves out details like what file dialog appears, how the audio file is selected, or potential prerequisites. The warning to 'inspect the command name first' suggests that more verification might be needed, which is a gap. It is complete enough for a basic call but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively total since there are no properties. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not contradict or fail to cover anything in this regard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Import an audio file as a new track.' It identifies the resource (audio file) and the expected outcome. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'project_import_audio', but the purpose is unambiguous. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' wording adds a technical detail that helps identify the tool's nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The warning 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not explain conditions that would favor this tool over others like project_import_audio or raw_open. It lacks any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is a useful warning about side effects. However, this is vague: it does not specify what project state could change or under what circumstances, and 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable guidance. It is more transparent than a bare 'Opens dialog' but still lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the no-argument detail, and the third provides a side-effect warning. However, 'InputDevice:' is a redundant prefix and 'inspect the command name first' feels cryptic rather than informative, slightly reducing structure quality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, the description covers the core action and warns about possible side effects, which is adequate. But it does not explain the actual behavior of the selection dialog, what happens after selection, or what 'inspect the command name first' means in practice. Given no annotations and no output schema, this leaves notable ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to explain. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it 'no-argument,' which is helpful and aligns with the empty schema. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens the recording device selection dialog, which is a specific verb and resource. It also says it is a static no-argument Audacity action, providing immediate clarity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like raw_output_device or raw_device_info, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is a static no-argument action, which is useful context, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_output_device or raw_device_info. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not give concrete guidance for selecting this tool. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does warn that it 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which signals potential side effects. However, it does not specify what dialog or what state changes, leaving an agent uncertain about what to expect. This is a partial disclosure, not a thorough one.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the action: 'Focus the last track.' The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' is somewhat redundant since a zero-parameter schema already implies no arguments, but it adds minimal overhead. The caution is appended at the end. Overall, it is efficient with little waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter action, the description covers the basic operation and a warning about side effects. However, it leaves out what 'last track' means precisely (e.g., the last in selection order or project list) and does not explain the potential dialog or state change in enough detail for an agent to fully predict outcomes. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that might mutate project state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema fully covers an empty object. According to the rule, a tool with no parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to explain. This is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the action clearly: 'Focus the last track.' It identifies the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like raw_first_track or raw_next_track, though the 'last' qualifier implies a distinction. That leaves some ambiguity about whether it selects, moves to, or highlights, but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention raw_first_track or other track-navigation tools, nor does it explain a scenario where 'last' is preferred. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is a safety hint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state', which is useful transparency about side effects. However, it lacks specifics about the nature of the dialog or state changes, and it does not explain the actual behavior of 'sending a message' or what the command name refers to. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose ('Send a test message'). The second sentence adds a necessary caveat about side effects and a caution to inspect the command name. However, the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is ambiguous and could be clarified without adding length, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and warns of potential side effects. However, it leaves key questions unanswered: what exactly does the message do, how does an agent use it, and what does 'inspect the command name' mean in practice? The reliance on an unstated command name adds ambiguity, making the description only partially complete for a confused agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema itself fully documents the parameters (none exist). The description reinforces this by noting it is a 'no-argument' action. Since there are no parameters to elaborate on, the description cannot add more meaning in this dimension; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Send a test message to Audacity', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It also notes it is a static no-argument action, distinguishing it from parameterized tools. However, it does not fully disambiguate from the many other raw_* sibling tools, especially since the caution to 'inspect the command name first' implies a generic wrapper without specifying what makes this different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a partial use case ('test message') but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' hints at a prerequisite but does not clarify when to use this specific tool versus other raw_* actions. Given the large sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the action "may open a dialog or change project state," which is meaningful transparency. However, it does not explain whether the prompt blocks for user input, what state changes are possible, or what the return behavior is, so the disclosure is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a useful caution. The repeated "Nyquist" is slightly redundant, but overall it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and hints at side effects, which is adequate. Yet the ambiguity around whether this opens an interactive prompt, blocks the agent, or requires follow-up action leaves an important gap for an AI making the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter information is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action and resource: "Open the Nyquist scripting prompt." The qualifier "Static no-argument Audacity action" adds useful context, though the purpose is somewhat muted by the vague warning about dialogs and project state changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes this is a static no-argument action and advises to "inspect the command name first," but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over any of the many raw_* siblings or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied, not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency, but it remains vague about specific side effects or required prerequisites. The warning 'inspect the command name first' further signals uncertainty, but does not detail consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently states the action and its static nature, and appends a caution. No wasted words, though the final clause is slightly redundant with the preceding caution.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers its essence and potential side effects. However, it lacks specificity about what 'continuously evolving drum sound' entails in terms of project state changes and what 'inspect the command name first' actually implies. For a low-complexity tool it is adequate but leaves room for more precise operational detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, so the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function ('Generate a continuously evolving drum sound') with a specific verb and resource, and notes it is a static no-argument Audacity action. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling raw_* actions by naming the specific sound type, but does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only warns to 'inspect the command name first,' which is a caution rather than usage direction. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add a side-effect warning: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, this is vague and does not specify what state changes or what dialog may appear, so it is minimally transparent rather than fully disclosing behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose and then add necessary caveats. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat vague, but the description is still compact and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the action, the lack of arguments, and possible side effects, which is decent for a small tool. Yet 'Jump to a specified position' conflicts with 'no-argument' because no position value can be supplied, and the instruction to inspect the command name first is left unexplained. This creates real ambiguity for an agent with no annotations or output schema to fall back on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' so there is no parameter-semantics gap to compensate for. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The lead phrase 'Jump to a specified position in the audio' names a concrete action and resource, so the tool is not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from position-related siblings like cursor_set_position or transport_set_cursor, but the seek action is identifiable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers only implied usage: a static, no-argument action for seeking. It never states when to choose this over the many cursor/position siblings, and 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable guidance for selecting the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and calls itself 'static no-argument,' which is useful, but it remains hedged and does not specify actual side effects on the selection or project.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The final instruction, 'inspect the command name first,' is slightly unclear but does not bloat the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter raw command with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and risk warning. However, it does not clarify what object is acted upon (e.g., selected clip) or what observable result should be expected, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating it is a 'no-argument Audacity action,' adding no conflicting or missing parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Modify properties (color, start time) of a clip.' It clearly indicates what the tool targets, though it does not explicitly differentiate from many clip-related siblings like select_clip or effect_clip_fix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions apply (e.g., needing a selected clip). The phrase 'inspect the command name first' hints at caution but does not provide actionable usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says the action 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first; it does not specify side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior. The disclosure is too vague to be actionable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose statement. It conveys the core action, the no-argument nature, and a caution about possible side effects in only two sentences, though the vague 'inspect the command name first' advice is somewhat unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, so the description is the only behavioral source. It does not explain prerequisites, return values, or what exactly happens when invoked; the advice to inspect the command name shifts responsibility rather than providing complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information missing. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or unnecessary parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear, specific action: change project window properties (size, position, caption). It also identifies the tool as a static, no-argument Audacity action, which helps distinguish it from parameter-driven sibling tools like raw_set_clip or raw_set_preference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Static no-argument Audacity action' but does not state when this command is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer another project-related tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable context. However, it does not specify what state changes could occur, whether the dialog is modal, or what the observable outcome will be, so transparency is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and mostly front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'TimerRecord:' prefix is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the final instruction is vague, but the overall length is appropriate and no major filler is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the no-argument nature and hints at possible side effects, which is useful for a low-complexity tool. However, the ambiguity between opening a dialog and changing project state leaves the agent uncertain about the actual effect. Without annotations or an output schema, this uncertainty is a meaningful gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is little to document. The description reinforces this by calling the action 'no-argument,' which matches the schema. No additional parameter meaning is needed, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Open Timer Record dialog.' This distinguishes the tool from the many sibling raw_* commands, which have different targets. However, it undercuts itself by adding 'May open a dialog or change project state,' introducing uncertainty about the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance explains when to choose this tool over alternatives. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not clarify selection criteria. Sibling tools like raw_record2nd_choice or raw_toggle are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does acknowledge potential side effects ('May open a dialog or change project state'), but it does not explain what state changes may occur, whether a focused track is required, or what happens if none is focused. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and shifts responsibility to the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second and third sentences add some behavioral caution, though 'Static no-argument Audacity action' is partially redundant with the empty schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, the description covers the main action and flags potential side effects, which is adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'focused track' means, what the dialog does, or whether the tool is safe to invoke without user confirmation. The hedging phrase 'inspect the command name first' suggests the definition itself is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage by virtue of being empty. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' which is sufficient since there is no parameter meaning to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Open the gain dialog for the focused track.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it is implicitly distinguished from sibling tools like raw_track_gain_dec and raw_track_gain_inc. However, the added caveat 'May open a dialog or change project state' introduces some uncertainty about the exact behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_track_gain_dec, raw_track_gain_inc, or raw_track_pan. 'Inspect the command name first' is more of a caution than a usage guideline, and no when/when-not conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is useful. However, the warning is hedged ('may') and does not specify reversibility, permissions, or concrete side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. The leading 'TrackGainDec:' is redundant with the tool name, but the rest is tight and each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument action, the definition is mostly adequate: the target is stated and the side-effect warning is included. The directive to 'inspect the command name first' introduces an unprovided resource, and the absence of an output schema and clear success signal leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage; the description reinforces this with 'no-argument.' For a parameterless tool the baseline is 4, and there is nothing else to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Decrease the gain') and the target ('focused track'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like raw_track_gain_inc or raw_track_gain, relying on the verb to imply differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over raw_track_gain_inc or raw_track_gain. The only context is 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which says nothing about selection conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It warns that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name, which is somewhat useful. However, it's vague about what dialog or state changes could occur, and it doesn't clarify the underlying Audacity behavior beyond moving a track.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact—two sentences that state the action and a caution. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The caution is brief and doesn't bloat the content, though it could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool, the description covers the basic action. However, it doesn't explain what 'focused track' means in Audacity, when moving up is appropriate (e.g., reordering tracks), or what the resulting project state might be beyond 'change project state.' Given the sibling set and lack of output schema, a bit more context would improve usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema reflects that with an empty properties object. The description redundantly states 'no-argument,' but with no params to document, the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Move the focused track up one position.' This specifies a concrete verb, resource, and direction. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like raw_track_move_top or raw_track_move_down, even though the nuance is important for correct selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling move commands (e.g., move top, move bottom). It includes a caution about side effects but doesn't state typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving an agent to infer when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description only states the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, or impact on other tracks. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the bare operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and directly to the point, with no unnecessary words or information. It efficiently communicates the purpose and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action, the description is adequate. However, it omits any mention of return values, error handling for invalid track indices, or side effects on playback. Given the lack of output schema, it could benefit from a note about expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a clear explanation of both parameters: track index (0-based) and mute boolean (true=mute, false=unmute). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which has no field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the specific action (mute/unmute) and resource (track), and distinguishes from siblings like track_mute_all and raw_track_mute by focusing on a single track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., raw_track_mute, track_mute_all). The description implies a single-track operation but doesn't state conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation and result but does not mention whether the original audio is replaced, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, or how silence detection is configured. These are significant gaps for an editing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the action and the result, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool this is minimally complete: it identifies the selection target and the outcome. However, it omits routing guidance among the many split-related sibling tools and does not disclose the behavioral consequences of the operation, which leaves some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: split the selected audio at detected silences, creating separate clips. It clearly communicates the operation and result, and somewhat distinguishes itself from silence-removal tools like truncate_silence, though it does not explicitly contrast with the edit_split sibling family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'at detected silences' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would not know from this description when to choose edit_disjoin over edit_split, edit_split_new, or label_split_regions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is an effect application, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a selection, whether it is undoable, or what happens when no audio is selected. Parameter semantics are useful but are not behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, and uses a clear Args block. Every sentence contributes either purpose or parameter meaning, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-optional-parameter effect, the parameter documentation is adequate. However, the description omits the operational context: what the effect applies to, any preconditions, and what consequences or errors may result. This is a moderate gap, especially with no annotations or output schema to fill it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining both parameters: fade_type maps 0/1 to fade up/down and curve maps 0/positive/negative to linear/exponential/logarithmic. The curve explanation is somewhat coarse, but it adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Apply') and resource ('an adjustable fade'), with 'curve control' signaling a distinct capability beyond simple fade-in/out siblings. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the wording and parameter hints differentiate it from tools like effect_fade_in and effect_fade_out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is only implied by 'adjustable fade' and 'curve control'; an agent can infer it is for custom fades rather than fixed ones. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this vs effect_fade_in, effect_fade_out, or effect_studio_fade_out, and it offers no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that the effect is applied to selected audio, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive/undoable, whether a selection is required, or what happens if no audio is selected. These are important side effects for a mutation-style audio tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter documentation is compact and directly useful, with no filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter effect tool, the core invocation details are present: what it does and what the parameters mean. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should also mention whether the modification is in-place/destructive and whether an audio selection is required. These are clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'delay' is in seconds and gives a default, and it defines 'decay' as a 0-1 factor with the interpretation 'lower = faster decay'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Apply echo effect') and target ('selected audio'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It is distinct from obvious siblings like effect_reverb by naming 'echo', but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related effects such as echo/reverb/repeat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_reverb or effect_repeat. It implies use when an echo effect is needed, but it does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the core effect and the selection prerequisite. It does not disclose the default fade curve/duration, whether the operation modifies audio in place, or whether it is reversible via undo—relevant gaps for a tool with zero configurable parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero redundancy: the first front-loads the action and the second adds the essential prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, making this appropriately minimal rather than under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless effect tool this is nearly adequate, but it omits the tool's fixed/default behavior, any note on reversibility, and a pointer distinguishing it from the closely related sibling fade tools. An agent choosing among effect_fade_out, effect_studio_fade_out, and effect_adjustable_fade would benefit from more context to pick correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to document; the only operational input is the region selection mentioned in the description. Per the 0-parameter baseline, this is acceptable, though a note that the fade uses fixed defaults would add marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Apply a fade-out to the selected audio') with a clear verb and resource, and 'fade-out' inherently contrasts with the sibling tool effect_fade_in. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related fade variants in the sibling list (effect_studio_fade_out, effect_adjustable_fade), so differentiation relies on name inference rather than explicit statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence ('Select the region to fade first.') provides a concrete prerequisite for correct invocation. However, there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like effect_studio_fade_out or effect_adjustable_fade, leaving alternative selection to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not disclose whether the effect permanently modifies the audio, whether an active selection is required, whether it is undoable, or what the return/result is. For a mutating audio tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear argument listing. Every sentence is informative, and the parameter details are easy to scan. The defaults repeat the schema, but that duplication is minor and improves usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low complexity with all three parameters fully documented, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the effect and arguments but omits important context such as preconditions (e.g., selected audio must exist), destructive behavior, and result reporting. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: frequency as tremolo speed in Hz with range 1-1000, depth as percentage with range 0-100, and waveform with an explicit numeric-to-shape mapping. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definitions and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Apply tremolo (volume oscillation) effect to the selected audio.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'volume oscillation' clarifies the effect's nature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling effect tools like effect_phaser or effect_echo, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says the effect applies to selected audio but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and generic behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (a label is created at the current position/selection) but omits side effects such as whether an empty text creates an unlabeled label, whether a label track is required, or what happens to the existing selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The main sentence is front-loaded, short, and directly actionable. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is minimal and does not add meaningful verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers the basic invocation. However, in a large sibling family of label-related tools, it does not disambiguate from label_add_at or label_add_batch, and it does not mention any effects on the current selection or label track.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds only a slight clarification by calling text 'Label text' and repeating the schema's default of empty. Schema coverage is 0%; the description should compensate more, but for a single free-form string parameter it does provide enough meaning for basic use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Add a label') and the precise scope ('at the current cursor position or selection'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as label_add_at to differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the purpose: use this when adding a label at the current cursor or selection. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer label_add_at, label_add_batch, or track_add_label, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Import labels', which implies a project-mutating operation, but it does not state whether existing labels are replaced or appended, what file format is expected, or whether the operation is reversible/only. This is a meaningful gap for an import action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely tight: one sentence states the operation, and the Args section gives exactly one line for the single parameter. There is no redundancy or irrelevant content, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter import tool, the description provides a minimally viable call contract: pass an absolute path to a label text file. However, it omits important contextual details such as whether labels are added to the existing project, whether they replace existing labels, what label file syntax is expected, and what response or errors the agent can expect. With no annotations or output schema, this leaves some uncertainty for the calling agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only gives the property title 'Path' with no description, leaving 0% schema coverage. The description's Args section fully compensates by explaining that path must be an absolute path to the labels text file, defining both the required type constraint and the resource it points to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Import labels') and the input source ('from a text file'), giving an agent a solid grasp of the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling label tools such as label_export or label_add_batch, though the file-based import is enough to infer some separation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose label_import over alternatives. The sibling list includes many label-related tools, but the description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to guess when this import path is the right one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended effect and the default ceiling, but omits whether the operation is destructive, whether audio must be selected first, and what happens after processing. For a modifying effect, this leaves important operational behavior undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, a useful industry-standard note, then a tight parameter list. The Args block partially duplicates the schema, but since the schema has no descriptions, this duplication earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify application scope and side effects. It does not state whether the limiter applies to selected audio, a whole track, or the entire project, nor does it mention whether the operation can be undone or what result the agent should expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block meaningfully compensates by documenting all six parameters with units, defaults, and allowed values for limiter_type and makeup_gain. It does not explain the acoustic difference between limiter types or precisely how makeup gain is applied, but it gives enough semantic information to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a limiter to prevent audio from exceeding a threshold.' This makes the core function clear and distinct from generic effects, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like compressor or normalize for contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Use after compression' provides a clear and practical sequencing guideline for when this tool fits in a workflow. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the action is static, takes no arguments, and 'may open a dialog or change project state.' However, it does not clarify what the command name to inspect is or what specific state changes could occur, leaving some uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The final sentence about inspecting the command name is vague and arguably does not earn its place, which keeps it from a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given 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 and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: purpose, argument count, and potential side effects. The cryptic instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a minor completeness gap, but overall the tool is adequately described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating it is a 'no-argument' action, which is consistent and sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Compare audio regions between tracks,' and further identifies it as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action.' This is specific enough to distinguish the tool's basic purpose from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other raw_* commands or audio-analysis tools. The caveat 'inspect the command name first' hints at caution but does not explain the appropriate selection context or what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful, and notes it's 'static' and 'no-argument.' However, it doesn't specify the exact side effects, whether it mutates data persistently, or what happens to existing macros. The 'inspect the command name first' advice hints at potential ambiguity but leaves the reader to figure out how to do that. Given the warning, it's adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Create or edit macros'), followed by essential qualifiers (static, no-argument, potential side effects, and the caution to inspect). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter UI-triggering tool, the description covers the action and side-effect warning well. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over raw_apply_macro or how to interpret the 'inspect the command name first' step. Since the tool has no output schema and no params, the description is mostly complete for invocation but missing sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4; no further semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create or edit macros.' The verb-resource pairing is specific, and the qualifier 'Static no-argument Audacity action' clarifies it's a raw command. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like raw_apply_macro (which applies macros) or raw_manage_analyzers/raw_manage_tools (which manage other resource types). It's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention raw_apply_macro or other management tools, nor does it state the typical scenario (e.g., 'use this to edit macro definitions in the Audacity UI'). The advice to 'inspect the command name first' is a caution but not a usage condition or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some disclosure: 'May open a dialog or change project state' warns of possible side effects. However, this is vague and hedged, and 'inspect the command name first' is not a concrete behavioral explanation. It is more transparent than nothing but still under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: two sentences front-load the core action and then add a side-effect warning. The 'SelCursorStoredCursor:' prefix is redundant with the tool name, and the final instruction is somewhat vague, but no sentence is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter static command, the description covers the main behavior and flags potential side effects, which is mostly sufficient. It does not explain how the stored position is established or what happens if none exists, but the sibling raw_store_cursor_position and the command name fill in much of that context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and the description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' so there is no parameter ambiguity. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Select audio from current cursor to stored position.' This is a specific verb plus a specific selection range, and the 'stored position' qualifier distinguishes it from plain selection commands. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than sibling selection or cursor-related commands such as raw_sel_start, raw_sel_end, or raw_store_cursor_position. 'Static no-argument' describes invocation but not the conditions under which this command is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which signals side effects and potential blocking. However, it is vague about what state changes occur, whether a track must be selected, and whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences convey purpose, invocation style, and the key caveat about dialogs and project state. The warning is front-loaded enough for an agent to notice before invoking the tool, and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential caveat that this may open a dialog or change project state, which is critical for a raw action. It does not, however, mention which track is affected, whether selection is required, or what the tool returns, leaving some ambiguity despite the zero-parameter simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema already shows an empty properties object, so there is little semantic burden. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' and no parameter documentation is needed beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Set audio properties (mute, solo, gain, pan) for a track.' This makes the core purpose clear and loosely differentiates it from single-property siblings like raw_track_mute and raw_track_pan, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many raw_track_* siblings. 'Static no-argument Audacity action' gives context, but the description does not say when this is preferable or when a more specialized tool should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description warns that it 'may open a dialog or change project state' but does not specify the nature of the dialog or the state change. With no annotations, this vague disclosure is insufficient for full transparency about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the action and a caution. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description states the core action, it lacks specifics about what 'previous time unit' means (e.g., previous grid line, previous second) and does not describe the resulting state. The caution about side effects is present but not detailed, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'no-argument,' which eliminates any ambiguity. The empty schema is fully consistent with the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Snap to the previous time unit') and identifies it as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action.' However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'raw_snap_to_nearest' or 'raw_snap_to_off', which could cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caution about inspecting the command name is vague and does not clarify usage context or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises to 'inspect the command name first,' giving some transparency about potential side effects. However, this is vague and does not specify the exact nature or extent of the state change, leaving ambiguity about whether the action is read-only or destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point. It states the action, notes that it takes no arguments, and adds a cautionary note. The structure is clear and not verbose, though it could be slightly tighter by merging some clauses. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the primary purpose and includes a warning about potential side effects. However, it does not elaborate on what the pan dialog is, what state changes might occur, or any implications for the user. Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficient but lacks detail that could help an agent anticipate outcomes or errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameters, and the description correctly notes 'no-argument.' Since schema coverage is 100% (no parameters), the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming the absence of arguments, which is already implicit in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Open the pan dialog for the focused track.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling commands like raw_track_pan_left/right by focusing on opening the dialog rather than adjusting the pan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for opening a dialog as opposed to adjusting pan, nor does it indicate when a user would prefer this over raw_track_pan_left/right or the raw_track_pan command. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' note is about parameter behavior, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations absent, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state' and 'if enabled' conditionality, which is useful. However, it does not detail what the dialog does or what state changes occur, leaving notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a caution. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, it covers the core action and foreshadows side effects. However, the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and doesn't tell the agent how to inspect or what to look for, leaving some ambiguity about prerequisites. Overall complete enough but with room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete. The description confirms it is 'no-argument', which is redundant but harmless. Since there are no parameters to clarify, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter context is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a label by typing' and identifies it as a static no-argument Audacity action. The verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from label tools that don't involve typing, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to contrast with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like label_add or raw_paste_new_label. The description only cautions 'inspect the command name first' and notes possible side effects, but lacks clear conditions or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and the prerequisite but does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, how it affects clips outside the selection, or what happens to gaps and timestamps. For a mutating edit tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite stated immediately after. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple selection-based operation, but because there are no annotations and no output schema, it should also clarify the effect on the rest of the project and whether the operation can be undone. It covers the key precondition but leaves behavioral consequences unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately emphasizes the selection prerequisite instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Align selected tracks end-to-end (sequentially).' The phrase 'sequentially' clarifies the ordering behavior and helps distinguish it from nearby siblings like edit_join or track_mix_and_render. It is clear but not perfectly detailed about what 'align' produces in the timeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Select the tracks first.' However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as edit_join, track_mix_and_render, or edit_disjoin, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions under which it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key behavior—toggling pause—and restricts it to playback or recording contexts. However, it does not explain what happens when transport is already paused, stopped, or inactive, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Toggle pause') and immediately states the applicable contexts ('during playback or recording'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter transport toggle, this is minimally adequate, but it leaves out edge-case behavior: what occurs when transport is stopped, whether toggling applies to playback and recording independently or together, and whether position is preserved. With no annotations and no output schema, those gaps are not compensated elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; no parameter documentation is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a concrete transport action—toggle pause—and explicitly scopes it to playback or recording. It is clear enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like transport_play, transport_stop, and transport_record, though the exact state transition (whether it always resumes or only enters pause) is implied rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transport_play, transport_stop, or raw_play_stop. The description does not mention whether the tool is only meaningful while transport is active, nor does it indicate any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the main action—starting a recording on a new track—but does not explain what happens if recording is already in progress, whether playback is stopped, whether the track is created immediately, or how recording is stopped. For a mutating transport command, this is a meaningful transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler or repetition. The verb 'start recording' and object 'new track' are front-loaded and every word contributes to the intent. It is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter command.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient and clearly identifies the action. However, because there are no annotations, it leaves out surrounding behavior such as state changes, how to stop the recording, and how this relates to sibling transport tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The phrase 'on a new track' adds meaningful context about what the recording action applies to, even though there are no formal parameters. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('start recording') and a specific resource ('a new track'), making the tool's core action clear. It stands apart from transport_play, transport_stop, and transport_pause because it is the only one named as recording. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from raw_timer_record or raw_record2nd_choice, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when the user wants to begin recording, which is basic usage guidance. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note that transport_stop would be needed to end the recording. The guidance is purely implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state the core side effect: moving the playback cursor to a given position. However, it does not disclose secondary behavior such as whether playback state is changed, whether the timeline bounds are enforced, or whether selection is affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. There is no filler, and every line contributes either the operation or the required parameter meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter setter with no output schema, the core invocation contract is present. Still, the complete absence of usage guidance and boundary behavior leaves some context gaps that an agent would need to resolve through other tools or trial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'Time' title and number type. It does so by defining the lone parameter as 'Position in seconds,' adding both role and unit. It stops short of clarifying whether the position is absolute from project start or relative, but for one parameter this is solid compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and object: 'Set the playback cursor position.' The qualifier 'playback' helps separate it from selection/navigation concepts, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the near-identical sibling cursor_set_position or from raw_seek, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With siblings like cursor_set_position, raw_seek, and transport_play present, an agent is left to infer which one matches a user request; the description provides no exclusions or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates what the tool does and lists parameters. It does not state whether the effect is destructive, whether it applies to the current selection, how the gain interacts with the other parameters, or what happens when all values are left at their defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean argument list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the phrase 'simple tonal shaping tool' adds only modest value and the argument list partially mirrors the schema field names.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The parameters are fully documented, which is the most critical information for calling the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on how the effect behaves in context, such as whether it applies to selected audio, whether it can be undone, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero descriptions for its parameters, so the Args block is the only source of semantic meaning. It fully documents all three parameters with dB ranges, defaults, and clarifies that gain is output gain, which is valuable beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence, 'Adjust bass and treble frequencies with a simple tonal shaping tool,' clearly names the action and target. It is distinguishable from more complex siblings like effect_equalization by the word 'simple', though it does not explicitly name the alternative it competes with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'simple tonal shaping tool' weakly implies it is for basic bass/treble adjustments rather than full equalization, but no alternative is named and no exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the shaped-curve behavior, but it does not say whether the operation modifies the audio destructively, affects only the current selection, or is undoable. For a mutating effect this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds one useful qualitative distinction. No words are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter effect with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the action, the target, and the distinguishing audio-curve behavior. It could add a brief note about selecting audio first or how this differs from the basic fade, but nothing essential is missing for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema fully documents this by listing an empty properties object, so no parameter details are needed from the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a specific action—applying a fade out—and the target resource (selected audio). It hints at differentiation with 'specially shaped curve' and 'more natural than a linear fade,' but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling effect_fade_out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when a natural-sounding, studio-quality fade out is desired on the selection. However, it does not state when not to use it or how it compares to effect_fade_out or effect_adjustable_fade, leaving the choice between siblings to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does meaningfully disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state.' This alerts the agent to potential side effects beyond the mere timeline change. It could be more specific about reversibility or the exact dialog, but the caution is valuable and not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' sentence is concise and the side-effect warning is useful. The prefixed 'BeatsandMeasures:' label adds little over the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is slightly vague, but overall the description is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the core purpose and a side-effect caution, which is mostly sufficient. However, the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is unexplained, and there is no mention of how the result is observed or why caution is needed. Given the large sibling set, a slightly fuller context would reduce ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action, which is helpful for the agent. There is no additional parameter meaning to add beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set timeline format to beats and measures.' This is a specific verb plus a specific resource, and the phrase 'beats and measures' distinguishes it from the sibling raw_minutesand_seconds. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related timeline-format or raw commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives almost no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It says it is a 'static no-argument Audacity action' and advises to 'inspect the command name first,' but it does not explain when to use this versus raw_minutesand_seconds or any other sibling. No exclusions or selection conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it partially does: it warns 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first. However, it is vague about side effects, return behavior, or exactly what state may change. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, static nature, and behavioral caution. It could arguably drop the final 'inspect the command name first' warning, but it is useful for a raw command-style tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete. However, given the large sibling set and the ambiguity of 'change_project_state,' an agent would benefit from knowing whether this is safe to invoke or what typical response it returns. Still, minimal viable for a simple static action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly emphasizes 'no-argument' action, which is useful confirmation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Open the audio host/interface selection dialog' and identifies it as a static no-argument Audacity action. The tool name 'raw_change_audio' is somewhat opaque, but the description clarifies its function and distinguishes it from typical audio-editing operations among the large sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a raw/static action with no arguments, but it does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives. It notes 'inspect the command name first,' which hints at caution but doesn't provide clear when-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like raw_output_device or raw_input_device.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is important because the name suggests a harmless read-only check. The term 'static' is slightly ambiguous, but the side-effect warning is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, with only two sentences that cover purpose, argument count, and behavioral caveats. The 'CheckDeps:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall it is efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves ambiguity about what 'dependencies' means, what the expected outcome is, and what 'inspect the command name first' entails. There is no output schema, so some explanation of expected results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already exhaustively covers them. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, which is consistent with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Check dependencies for the current project.' It also adds that this is a static, no-argument Audacity action, which helps frame what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling raw_* tools, but the purpose is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'inspect the command name first,' which is a cautious hint but not a clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use directive. It does not mention alternatives or explain when this tool should be selected over sibling commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency for a raw command. However, it hedges with 'may' and does not specify what dialog appears or what project state is altered, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and information-dense: it states the effect, the argument expectation, and the key risk in a few clauses. The opening label 'Delay:' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the rest is compact and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it gives the purpose, confirms no arguments, and warns of possible side effects. But 'inspect the command name first' is vague and the exact behavioral outcome of applying the delay remains underspecified, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, and the description explicitly confirms 'no-argument.' With zero parameters, no additional parameter semantics are needed, matching the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a delay effect.' It also adds that this is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which clarifies the exact kind of invocation. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like effect_echo or effect_reverb, so it does not earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying it applies a delay effect and takes no arguments, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The warning about opening a dialog or changing project state is more cautionary than a selection rule. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state' despite being described as static, and advises caution. This is valuable transparency, though the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and not actionable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and mostly front-loaded. The 'DeviceInfo:' prefix adds little, and the final clause is slightly cryptic, but the overall message is delivered in just two sentences without unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, the description covers purpose and potential side effects, but it omits what the returned technical information looks like and does not identify any sibling tools for comparison. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context about expected output or when to prefer this over raw_midi_device_info would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is little for the description to add. The description reinforces that this is a 'no-argument' action, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show technical information about audio devices.' It is clear enough to distinguish from raw_midi_device_info, though it does not explicitly exclude raw_input_device/raw_output_device or name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes the action is static and no-argument, but does not explain when a user should call raw_device_info instead of raw_midi_device_info or other device-related commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'retrieve' claim by warning that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is important unexpected behavior for something named 'get.' The additional caution to 'inspect the command name first' attempts to flag hidden risk, though it remains vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'GetPreference:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is cryptic, but the overall message is compact and each clause adds at least some context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states that it retrieves a preference and warns about potential side effects. However, it never explains which preference is retrieved, whether a return value is delivered directly, or what 'inspect the command name first' actually means for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is little to add. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action, which is marginally helpful but largely redundant with the empty properties object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve a preference value.' It is distinguishable from the sibling raw_set_preference by the word 'Retrieve,' and mentions it is a static no-argument action. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or fully clarify how the target preference is identified, and the 'inspect the command name first' warning introduces mild ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_set_preference. The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' gives context that no arguments are required, but it does not state the circumstances under which an agent should choose this tool, nor does it explain what 'inspect the command name first' means operationally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool may open a dialog or change project state, which is important behavioral context. It also states it is a static action without arguments. It doesn't detail side effects or error behavior, but covers the key risk of interactive/persistent changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the key caution. Every word earns its place with no fluff. It is efficiently structured for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument action with no output schema, the description provides enough to use it: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may open a dialog or mutate state. The caution about inspecting the command name adds a safety note. It lacks explicit success/return details, but these are not essential given the tool's nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds confirmation of 'no-argument' which aligns with the schema, and no further parameter meaning is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports raw audio data without headers, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling raw_import_audio by the 'without headers' qualifier, and notes it is a static no-argument action. It doesn't fully elaborate on use cases but conveys the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like raw_import_audio or project_import_audio. The only hint is 'inspect the command name first,' which is vague and not a clear usage condition. No exclusions or scenarios are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this reasonably well by labeling the action as 'static no-argument' and explicitly warning that it 'may open a dialog or change project state.' It does not fully detail the dialog behavior or state changes, but it is candid about side effects and uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler, the primary function is front-loaded, and the caveat follows. The 'MinutesandSeconds:' prefix is mildly redundant with the tool name, but the rest is compact and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action and side-effect risk. However, the directive to 'inspect the command name first' is unexplained, and the description does not provide explicit selection context or clarify the dialog/state-change implications enough for an agent to act with full confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is already high. The description reinforces this by calling the action 'no-argument,' which is accurate and leaves no parameter ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Set timeline format to minutes and seconds.' It is not a tautology and is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling raw_beatsand_measures tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as raw_beatsand_measures or other timeline-format commands. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a caution rather than a usage guideline, leaving selection context largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is honest about potential side effects. However, the warning is vague—it does not specify which dialogs or state changes might occur, so transparency is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and every sentence adds value: it names the action, clarifies that it is a static no-argument command, and warns about side effects. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-argument navigation action, the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does, confirms no arguments, and flags potential side effects. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for this kind of command. It could be slightly more specific about what 'next window' means in Audacity, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' which is helpful confirmation. Since there are no parameters to document, the schema and description together are sufficient; the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Navigate to the next window') and identifies the resource (window) with a specific verb. It is distinguishable from siblings like raw_prev_window by the direction implied in 'next'. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' phrasing adds helpful context, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context ('Navigate to the next window') but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as raw_prev_window or raw_next_frame. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or inappropriate to call. The warning to 'inspect the command name first' implies caution but does not provide practical usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'May open a dialog or change project state' but does not specify what state changes or their reversibility. The 'inspect the command name first' instruction is vague and not actionable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence contains a confusing final clause ('inspect the command name first') that does not help and could mislead. It could be tightened without losing content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument tool, the description covers the main action and a risk warning. However, the warning is vague and does not clarify return behavior, prerequisites, or how the state change manifests. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description's 'no-argument' note is redundant with the schema, so it adds no extra meaning. Baseline 4 applies for 0 params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool opens the playback device selection dialog, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from raw_input_device by naming 'output device'. The purpose is clear despite the extra caveat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention raw_input_device or any conditions for selection. The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' gives context but not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it is a static no-argument action, may open a dialog, and may change project state. This is reasonable transparency for a simple no-parameter command, though it could clarify whether the selection replaces or extends the existing selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'SelStart:' prefix is redundant with the tool name, and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic, but overall the text is economical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the action and warns about possible dialog/state changes, but it does not specify exact selection semantics or clarify the meaning of 'inspect the command name first,' leaving some room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the no-argument nature, which is sufficient for this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear, specific action: 'Set selection from cursor to start of track.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the broader sibling set, though it does not explicitly name nearby alternatives like raw_sel_end or select_cursor_to_track_end.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is a caution rather than a usage criterion, and there is no mention of when a user would prefer this over raw_sel_end or cursor_to_track_start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful caution: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, this is vague and does not specify what dialog or which project-state changes could occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful caveat, but 'inspect the command name first' is unclear and somewhat redundant, reducing overall crispness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument zoom-reset action, the description covers the basic function and warns about possible side effects. Still, it lacks details about when to choose this tool over other zoom commands and what 'change project state' means in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema already fully represents that with empty properties. The description reinforces 'no-argument' but adds no meaningful parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reset zoom to the default view.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling zoom tools like raw_zoom_in, raw_zoom_out, raw_zoom_sel, and raw_zoom_toggle. The core action and target state are immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool over its zoom siblings. It does not mention alternatives or conditions such as 'use raw_zoom_out to zoom away from default.' The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is not a real usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (replaces the original track), creates a new track, or how it handles multiple tracks or the undo state. Without annotations, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and direct, using two short sentences. It states the action and the prerequisite without any fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a necessary precondition (selecting the track) but does not explain the result or any side effects, such as whether the original stereo track is replaced or if a new mono track is created. It is sufficient for a very simple tool but lacks a complete behavioral contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it refers to a 'selected track' which is an implicit context rather than a parameter. Since there are no parameters, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the tool inherently implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Convert') and a specific resource ('selected stereo track') with a clear outcome ('to mono'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like track_add_mono or track_add_stereo, which create new tracks, by targeting an existing selected track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a precondition ('Select the track first') but does not mention when to use this tool versus other possible alternatives (e.g., effects that convert stereo to mono) or any context where it should not be used. It gives minimal guidance on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the side effect of creating labels. However, it omits important behavior: whether existing labels at those regions are overwritten or duplicated, what label track is affected, and whether the operation is reversible. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that mutates project state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and waste-free, and the Args section is structured and terse. Slight redundancy exists because the parameter defaults repeat the schema for both parameters, but the added range/meaning justifies the duplication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well. Missing is what the created labels look like (names, format), how the tool interacts with pre-existing labels, and what the return value is. These gaps matter for an analysis tool that modifies the label track, but the core calling contract is adequately documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare integer/default properties — and it does. It adds semantic meaning for both parameters: 'Min number of consecutive clipped samples to detect (1-1000, default 3)' and 'Min number of consecutive non-clipped samples to end a region', including the valid range and behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal titles/defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Find clipping in the selected audio') plus a concrete side effect ('create labels at clipped regions'). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like raw_show_clipping (visual only) and the other analyze_* tools, without needing to inspect their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't reference any sibling (e.g., raw_show_clipping, analyze_plot_spectrum) or state conditions under which clipping detection is appropriate, nor any prerequisites like playing or selecting specific audio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the cursor's final position; it does not disclose side effects such as whether the selection is preserved, whether the view scrolls, whether it affects the undo stack, or whether it is a non-destructive read-only action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the clarification '(time 0)' is immediately useful but not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless cursor-movement tool, the description captures the essential behavior. It does not elaborate on side effects or return values, but given the low complexity and intuitive semantics, what is present is largely sufficient, with only the missing behavioral details noted above preventing a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the input schema is already complete and there is no need for parameter documentation. The description adds useful context by clarifying the exact project start coordinate ('time 0'), which aligns with the baseline 4 for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('cursor') with an explicit target ('start of the project (time 0)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cursor_to_project_end, cursor_to_track_start, and raw_cursor_left, and the parenthetical clarifies the exact coordinate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The name and sibling list hint at differentiation, but the description does not articulate conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Cut... to clipboard' conveys the core effect (removal and clipboard placement) and hints that a selection is needed. But it does not disclose what happens when no region is selected, that the previous clipboard contents are overwritten, or that the operation is destructive to the source.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, 11 words, zero fluff. The action sentence is front-loaded and the precondition follows naturally. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool this is mostly adequate: it states the action and the key prerequisite. The gaps are minor but real — no failure-mode behavior for a missing selection, no explicit differentiation from the very similar edit_copy, and no return/output expectations (though no output schema exists).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema is empty (0 parameters) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's 'Select a region first' usefully documents the implicit input — the current selection state — which is the de facto parameter of this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (cut), resource (selected audio), and destination (clipboard). The phrase 'to clipboard' semantically distinguishes it from edit_delete (no clipboard) and edit_copy (leaves original intact), though it doesn't name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear precondition — 'Select a region first.' — which tells the agent that a prior selection is required. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over edit_copy or edit_delete, and no exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states only the action and result, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, what happens with gaps or overlaps, or how it behaves if no clips are selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every word adds meaning and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: selected clips and the intended outcome. It does not explain edge cases, but the simple nature of the tool makes the description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the operation relies entirely on the current selection, which the description mentions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource combination: 'Join selected clips into one clip.' This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse operation edit_disjoin and related splitting tools like edit_split.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of selection prerequisites, and no exclusion of cases like a single selected clip or overlapping clips. The agent must infer the usage from the imperative phrase 'selected clips.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description warns that it 'may open a dialog or change project state', which partially discloses side effects, but it is vague and does not specify what exactly happens. No annotations are provided to assist further.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only two sentences. It avoids fluff and directly communicates the core information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description gives a basic idea, it lacks context about what 'drag' means in Audacity or how to use it. The warning to inspect the command name suggests the description itself is insufficient for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly states 'no-argument', and the schema has no properties. This fully clarifies that there are no parameters to worry about.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: simulate a drag for UI interactions. It is specific about the verb and the target (UI), but 'drag' alone might be ambiguous without further context. Still, it gives a clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar raw_* commands. It does not mention any preconditions or typical scenarios. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is important side-effect context for an agent. It doesn't detail reversibility or permissions, but the core risk is surfaced clearly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose comes first, and the side-effect caveat follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter raw wrapper, the description covers purpose, no-argument behavior, and side-effect risk, which is a solid baseline. However, the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' hints at unresolved ambiguity about what the underlying command actually does, and with no output schema the agent must guess what result to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no schema gaps to compensate for. The description reinforces the no-argument nature by calling it a 'no-argument Audacity action,' matching the expected baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Apply a graphic equalizer effect') and a target ('GraphicEq'), and clarifies it is a static no-argument Audacity action. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like effect_equalization, but the raw, no-argument framing narrows its role considerably.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a cautinary note rather than usage direction, and there is no mention of when to prefer this tool over effect_equalization or other effect tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that it 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which warns of potential side effects, but does not specify what could be affected or how. The warning to inspect the command name is vague and does not detail consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The additional sentences about static action and possible side effects are concise, though the last instruction is slightly cryptic. Overall, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument view switch, the description provides the core action and a warning about side effects. However, it does not explain the exact outcome (e.g., whether the view replaces the current one, if there is a return state), and the admonition to 'inspect the command name first' hints at additional complexity not elaborated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema already shows no properties, and the description adds 'no-argument' which is redundant but consistent. No parameters need elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Switch to the mixer board view') with a clear resource (mixer board). It distinguishes from other raw_* tools by naming the view, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like raw_about or raw_graphic_eq.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies the tool is for viewing the mixer board, but provides no explicit alternatives or conditions for when to use it versus other view/tool actions. The instruction 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially does this by warning that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and by noting it is static and no-argument. However, the warning is vague, does not specify what could change or why, and does not clarify the return or side-effect profile beyond a generic caveat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then action characteristics, then a caution. It contains no filler, though the final clause 'inspect the command name first' is cryptic and could be clearer without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, the description covers the core purpose, argument count, and potential side effects. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'inspect the command name first' means and about exactly what state changes or dialogs may occur. An agent could call the tool, but it cannot fully predict the outcome or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is required. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'no-argument,' which is helpful confirmation. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Focus the next track.' It also identifies this as a static no-argument Audacity action, and the word 'next' distinguishes it from sibling commands like raw_prev_track, raw_first_track, and raw_last_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention raw_prev_track, raw_first_track, or any routing condition. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is not a practical usage guideline and leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses potential side effects ('May open a dialog or change project state') and identifies it as a static no-argument action. However, it lacks specifics on what state changes occur or what dialog appears. With no annotations to supplement, the description only partially covers behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the core action is front-loaded, followed by a relevant caution. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and potential side effects. The command is simple, and the caution about project state is important. A slight gap exists in not explaining what a 'new label' entails (e.g., placement), but this is likely implied by the command name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'no-argument' but adds no further meaning. No parameters exist to describe, so this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Paste text from the clipboard into a new label,' specifying the verb, resource, and source. This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_paste (paste into project) and label_add (add label) by focusing on the clipboard source and creation of a new label.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caution 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable and does not clarify conditions for selection. No mention of when to prefer this raw action over higher-level tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully disclose that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state.' This is useful transparency beyond the name and input schema, although it remains somewhat vague about the exact state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with three short sentences that each add information: what it does, that it is static/no-argument, and that it may have side effects. There is no filler or redundant restating beyond the title-like prefix.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool without an output schema, the core invocation is adequately described, and the side-effect warning is valuable. However, the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' introduces ambiguity, and the description does not clarify return behavior or enough context to confidently choose this over closely related transport tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action, which adds no necessary detail but is consistent and harmless.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs Play/Stop and updates the cursor position, and identifies it as a static no-argument Audacity action. This is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like raw_play_stop or transport_play.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no concrete guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_play_stop, transport_play, transport_stop, or transport_pause. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is a behavior warning rather than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state', which is valuable transparency for a navigation action. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of dialog or state change, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'PrevWindow:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but overall the description earns its place without excessive length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks (dialogs, state changes) and confirms it is a static Audacity action. It is reasonably complete, though 'previous window' could be clearer about what exactly constitutes a window and how navigation behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, which adds meaningful confirmation beyond the empty schema. No parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Navigate to the previous window') with a specific verb and resource, and the name reinforces the direction. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like raw_next_window by the explicit 'previous' scope, though it does not directly name any sibling. The 'Static no-argument Audacity action' note adds useful specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_next_window or frame-navigation tools. The warning to 'inspect the command name first' is a safety note, not usage guidance, and provides no decision criteria for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable context for a mutation-like operation. However, it does not specify what dialog, what state changes, or whether the action overwrites the existing file; the vague phrasing leaves significant room for interpretation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose first. The 'Save:' prefix is somewhat redundant with 'Save the current project,' but the overall length is appropriate and every sentence contributes practical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential points: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. The advice to 'inspect the command name first' hints at ambiguity but is not fully explained. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to use the tool safely in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and the description explicitly says this is a 'no-argument' action. With no parameters to document and full schema coverage, the description adds appropriate confirmation that no arguments are needed. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools plus explicit reinforcement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Save the current project.' This is specific enough to understand the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like project_save or raw_save_as, and the opening 'Save:' is redundant with the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: to save the current project. It also provides a caution to 'inspect the command name first,' which is a weak usage guardrail. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as raw_save_as or raw_save_copy, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It honestly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is material because the name says 'show' but the behavior is a toggle. It also labels the action as static/no-argument, giving an agent a basic risk model.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, parameterization, and side-effect risk. The instruction to inspect the command name is somewhat vague but not padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough to invoke: no args, toggles a display state, and may be mutating or blocking. It is slightly incomplete in not saying how to inspect the command name or what result to expect, but the low complexity keeps this acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The phrase 'no-argument' reinforces that the agent should supply no arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action—'Toggle extra menus display'—with a concrete resource (extra menus), and notes it is a static, no-argument Audacity action. This separates it from broad 'raw_*' siblings, though it does not explain what 'extra menus' are or distinguish it from raw_toggle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to invoke this tool instead of related raw_* or toggle operations. 'Inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It warns that the action may open a dialog or change project state, which is valuable safety-relevant context, but it remains vague about what exactly could change or how destructive the action might be.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a necessary caveat. Every sentence adds information and there is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a no-argument command: it names the action, notes the no-argument nature, and warns about potential side effects. However, it does not clarify what 'nearest time unit' means, does not compare with snap-to-off or snap-to-prior siblings, and leaves the 'inspect the command name first' instruction under-explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and the description explicitly states it is a no-argument action. This matches the schema and is entirely adequate given that no parameter documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action: snap selections to the nearest time unit. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings such as raw_snap_to_off and raw_snap_to_prior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives useful operational context: it is a static, no-argument Audacity action, and warns that it may open a dialog or change project state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling snap tools, leaving some usage selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful, but it does not specify what dialog, what project state may change, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible. This is partial transparency rather than comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core function: 'Disable snapping for selections.' The subsequent warnings about dialogs and project state are useful and not redundant. The final imperative 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic but does not inflate the description excessively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and one safety caveat. However, it leaves gaps: the exact effect on selection snapping, whether a dialog may require user interaction, and what 'inspect the command name first' means operationally. These gaps matter because the agent cannot infer them from structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description confirms the tool takes no arguments ('Static no-argument'), which reinforces the schema without adding contradictory information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Disable snapping for selections.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_snap_to_nearest and raw_snap_to_prior, which adjust snapping instead of turning it off. The added 'Static no-argument Audacity action' is ancillary but does not obscure the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_snap_to_nearest or raw_snap_to_prior. The only additional instruction, 'inspect the command name first,' is vague and does not clarify usage conditions or provide a decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the command may open a dialog or alter project state and warns to inspect the command name first, which is valuable. But the side effects are phrased as possibilities, and there is no detail on persistence, required permissions, or exact project-state impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then add necessary caveats about side effects. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument command the description covers purpose, no-argument usage, and side effects. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' introduces a vague prerequisite without explaining what to inspect or how, and with no annotations or output schema the behavioral picture remains incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument Audacity action,' making it explicit that arguments should not be supplied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with 'Set the threshold level for sound-activated recording', a specific verb + resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly call out sibling raw_sound_activation, but the 'level' wording and command name distinguish them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states the action's purpose and adds useful operational context ('Static no-argument Audacity action', 'May open a dialog or change project state'), so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection guidance among the many raw_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does some behavioral work by warning that the action may open a dialog or change project state. However, it is vague and defers to 'inspect the command name first' rather than explaining the actual side effects, reversibility, or project-state impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the purpose in the first clause. The leading 'TrackMoveTop:' is redundant with the tool name, and the trailing caution is vague, but overall every sentence adds some useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the description covers the basics: purpose, argument count, and side-effect uncertainty. It still leaves gaps such as prerequisites (focused track), exact meaning of 'top', and whether the operation is undoable, which an agent may need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with 'no-argument'. There is no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema, so the baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Move the focused track to the top') with a clear verb and resource. This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like raw_track_move_bottom, raw_track_move_up, and raw_track_move_down even without naming them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many track-movement alternatives or what conditions apply. 'Static no-argument Audacity action' is a constraint, not a usage policy, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful. However, it does not specify what dialog, what project state changes, or under what conditions these occur, leaving the side-effect profile vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before adding caveats. Each sentence contributes something, though the opening 'Updates:' label is slightly redundant and 'inspect the command name first' is a little opaque.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should more fully clarify likely side effects and what happens when the action runs. It warns about dialog/state changes but does not say what the agent should expect in return or how to interpret the outcome. Still, for a simple no-argument action, the core information is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description carries a lighter burden here. It explicitly reinforces the point by calling itself a 'no-argument' action, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Check for updates for Audacity.' It also identifies the tool as a static no-argument action, making its scope and resource unambiguous. While sibling tools are numerous, nothing else appears to duplicate this update-checking purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It warns to 'inspect the command name first' but does not name any sibling tool or provide conditions that would route an agent away from this action. Usage context is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state'. This is useful behavioral context beyond the stated toggle action, though it remains vague about exactly when these side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The 'ZoomToggle:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but the overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the action does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. It could define the 'two preset zoom levels' or clarify how to inspect the command name, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is high, so no parameter details are needed. The description adds the relevant fact that this is a 'no-argument' action, which appropriately confirms the static nature of the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action: toggling between two preset zoom levels, which goes well beyond the raw tool name. It distinguishes itself from zoom_in/zoom_out by describing a toggle behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the generic raw_toggle sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like raw_zoom_in, raw_zoom_out, or raw_zoom_normal. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a usage condition, and no when/when-not guidance is supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core operation but never states whether the original selected tracks are replaced or destroyed, whether the render is in-place, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the sibling `track_mix_and_render_to_new`, this ambiguity is material.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential operation and prerequisite. However, it omits the critical distinction from `track_mix_and_render_to_new` and does not disclose whether the original tracks are affected. This is a meaningful gap, though the core behavior is minimally covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete (100% coverage), so there are no parameter-level gaps. The description adds useful implicit-state context by requiring that tracks be selected first, but there is no actual parameter documentation needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and outcome: 'Mix and render selected tracks into a single track.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `track_mix_and_render_to_new`, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear, concrete prerequisite: 'Select tracks first.' This is explicit usage guidance about the state required before invoking the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when `track_mix_and_render_to_new` would be preferable, so it does not reach a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious halting behavior and does not clarify whether stopping is idempotent, what occurs if nothing is playing or recording, whether transport position resets, or how it differs from pause.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the action and its target precisely, making it as concise as possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core selection criterion needed to invoke it. It omits minor behavioral details like no-op behavior, but for such a simple transport command this is not a serious gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the empty schema is fully described, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter detail missing because there is nothing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Stop,' and names the resources, 'playback or recording,' leaving no ambiguity about the action. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like transport_play, transport_record, and transport_pause by naming the halting behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transport_pause, transport_play, or raw_play_stop. The agent must infer the usage purely from the tool name and one-line description, with no mention of exclusions, conditions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, especially with no annotations provided. However, it does not mention failure behavior, prerequisites like Audacity being running, or what happens during pipe discovery.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does without filler. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only health check tool, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but the simplicity of the tool and the clear health-check intent mitigate this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: check pipe discovery and execute read-only GetInfo against Audacity. It is clear and non-tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_pipeline_status or audacity_server_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a health-check tool to verify Audacity connectivity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the word 'health' and the described operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic effect (remove clicks and pops) and parameter effects, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it applies only to the current selection (though it says 'selected audio'), or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: a single-purpose sentence followed by a neatly formatted argument list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or tangential content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core invocation needs: purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits any note about whether the edit is undoable, the processing scope beyond 'selected audio', or performance implications, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description compensates by explaining both parameters (threshold and spike_width) with ranges, defaults, and qualitative effects (e.g., 'Higher = fewer clicks removed'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove clicks and pops from the selected audio.' It adds a clarifying example ('vinyl recordings') that helps distinguish it from generic repair or noise-removal tools. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a context clue ('vinyl recordings') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_repair or analyze_find_clipping. It lacks any mention of complementary or conflicting tools, leaving routing to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for explaining behavior. It states the main effect (moves the cursor) but gives no information about side effects like selection, playback, or undo behavior. For a simple cursor-move this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a clear front-loaded purpose statement and a brief parameter explanation. No redundancy. Every part contributes to correct invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one scalar parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter meaning well enough for an agent to call it correctly. It does not cover alternatives or edge cases, but those are not essential for this simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only says 'time' is a number. The description adds the critical unit: 'Position in seconds.' This meaningfully improves parameter understanding, though it does not specify the reference point (e.g., project start) or valid range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and target: 'Move the cursor to a specific time position.' This is clearly distinct from relative cursor movements like raw_cursor_left/right or anchor-based moves like cursor_to_track_start, but it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific time position' implies this is for absolute positioning rather than relative navigation or preset positions, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus transport_set_cursor, cursor_to_rack_start, or raw_cursor_* alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The argument documentation reveals meaningful behavior, such as the action modes (Remove/Isolate, Mono/Center) and default low/high cutoffs. With no annotations, the description still omits side-effect information, such as whether the operation destructively modifies audio or only processes a selection, so transparency is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The summary line is front-loaded and the parameter block is neatly organized, keeping the description easy to scan. A minor redundancy is that defaults are repeated from the schema, but this does not impair readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All four parameters and their defaults are documented, which covers the core calling contract. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return behavior, selection requirements, or the effect's permanence, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-style effect tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including the meaning of each action integer value, cutoff units in Hz, and the strength range 0-50. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb and object: 'remove or isolate vocals from a stereo track,' making the effect's purpose immediately evident. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings such as raw_karaoke or auto_cleanup_vocal, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a stereo track' provides relevant context for when the tool applies, and the action list clarifies the available modes. However, there is no direct guidance on when to choose this effect over sibling tools or any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the main side effect ('Creates a new track') and supported formats, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention project-open prerequisites, failure behavior, or whether the file is copied/linked, leaving those behaviors implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences plus a single args line; the essential purpose and side effect are front-loaded, and no words are wasted. The format examples are placed exactly where they are useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter import tool this is largely sufficient: an agent knows what to pass and what will happen. It falls short only in not stating explicit prerequisites (an open project) or what the tool returns/does on failure, which would matter more without annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only gives `path` as a string with no explanation, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that the path must be absolute and enumerating common audio formats (wav, mp3, ogg, flac, etc.), giving the agent concrete invocation guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('Import an audio file'), the target resource ('current project'), and the key side effect ('Creates a new track'), so an agent can distinguish it from unrelated edit/effect/transport tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling raw_import_audio, though the programmatic path argument and project_ prefix imply the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case—bring an audio file into the current project as a new track—but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over raw_import_audio or project_import_midi, and no 'when not to use' information. This is enough for obvious import requests but not for routing among similar import siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, but it does not disclose what happens to the current project, unsaved changes, or whether a prompt is shown. 'Create' implies mutation, yet no safety-relevant behavior is described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single, front-loaded eight-word sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool the description is minimally viable, but it leaves the project lifecycle unclear—particularly whether creating a new project affects the existing one. The missing side-effect disclosure keeps it from being complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; this matches the zero-parameter baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('Audacity project'), and property ('new empty'), which makes it unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like project_open and project_save. No ambiguity about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied by 'new empty'—use it when starting from a blank project—but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name exclusions such as project_open or project_save.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is useful cautionary context. It is somewhat vague about the nature and scope of the state change, but for a no-argument raw Audacity command this is a reasonable level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the core purpose. The 'ApplyMacro:' prefix is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is a bit ambiguous, but overall every sentence contributes useful information about what the tool does and its potential side effects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity — zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations — the description covers the basic invocation and side-effect warning. However, it does not explain what 'defined macro' means in practice, how the command name relates to the macro, or what the agent should expect after invocation, such as results, errors, or a dialog interaction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the empty schema already fully describes the parameters. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, which adds no new parameter semantics but is consistent and sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: apply a defined macro to the project. It also clarifies this is a static, no-argument Audacity action, which helps set it apart from macro management tools like raw_manage_macros, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use this when you want to apply a defined macro to the project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, mention alternatives such as raw_manage_macros, or describe prerequisites like whether a macro must already exist or be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful, but the wording is hedged and does not specify the actual state impact or whether the operation is destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but 'Static no-argument Audacity action' partially repeats the schema, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, non-actionable advice that does not meaningfully help an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument action, the description gives enough to invoke it: what it does and a caution about side effects. However, 'one unit' is not defined, and the side-effect warning is too uncertain to fully prepare an agent for what happens after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' adding no confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Move the cursor right by one unit.' It names the specific direction and granularity, distinguishing it from raw_cursor_left and the short/long jump variants in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it — for a single-unit rightward cursor move — but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like raw_cursor_short_jump_right or raw_cursor_long_jump_right, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavioral uncertainty: it 'may open a dialog or change project state' and tells the agent to inspect the command name first. It does not detail specific side effects or recovery steps, but the caution is meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and each clause adds value: purpose, no-argument nature, and behavioral warning. The 'Open: Open' prefix is mildly redundant but does not hurt clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Core invocation is clear for a zero-parameter tool, but the description leaves ambiguity about what happens after the potential dialog, what exactly 'inspect the command name first' requires, and how raw_open relates to higher-level open/project siblings. No output schema or return behavior is described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty and the description explicitly says this is a no-argument action, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: open an audio file, list of files, or project, and adds a key distinguishing constraint—this is a static no-argument Audacity action. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate raw_open from sibling commands like project_open or raw_import_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: this is a low-level, no-argument raw command, and the warning to 'inspect the command name first' hints at caution. However, it never explicitly states when to choose raw_open over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does flag that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful, but it does not clarify immediate recording behavior, undo impact, or whether existing audio will be overwritten. The vague 'inspect the command name first' caution adds little concrete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and every sentence contributes: purpose, static/no-argument nature, and potential side effects. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, the core purpose and a key side-effect warning are present, but the description lacks expected outcome, whether the action requires an active project, and what 'inspect the command name first' actually means operationally. There is no output schema to compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The description explicitly reinforces that this is a no-argument action, matching the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start punch and roll recording,' which is distinct from generic record/transport tools. It also identifies the action as a static, no-argument Audacity command, separating it from parameterized raw_* siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over transport_record, raw_timer_record, or other record-related commands. The only usage hint, 'inspect the command name first,' is cryptic and does not explain prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful for a potentially side-effectful action, and it also notes that this is a 'static no-argument' command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core behavior before adding the caveat about dialogs and state changes. The only mild redundancy is leading with 'Record2ndChoice:' when the tool name already conveys the command, but it is not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument action, the description covers the main behavioral risks and the basic effect. It is still somewhat thin on operational context: there is no clarification of when this should be chosen over transport_record, what happens if recording is already active, or whether a project must be open.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action. Since there are no parameters to document, the description appropriately confirms the empty input schema rather than needing to explain individual arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Start recording on a new track.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool from generic recording or playback siblings, though it does not explicitly compare against transport_record or other recording commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this when you want to start recording on a new track via a static no-argument Audacity action. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, such as transport_record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable context beyond the tool name. It does not detail what the dialog or state change is, but the warning is honest and useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat placed after. Every sentence earns its place, though 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat cryptic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool, the description covers purpose, argument count, and side-effect warnings. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., an image, a path, or a status), and the meaning of 'short format' is left unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the call surface. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none need explanation; the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Capture a screenshot of Audacity.' The '(short format)' qualifier and the generic static-action framing add some ambiguity, but an agent can still determine that this tool is for taking a screenshot without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it is a static no-argument Audacity action, so call it when a screenshot capture is needed without arguments. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, and 'inspect the command name first' is vague guidance rather than a concrete selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency for a mutation-style command. It does not detail exactly which dialog or state changes, but the warning is meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: three short sentences, each contributing useful information. The behavior is stated first, followed by the no-argument nature and a safety caveat. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter raw command with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the lack of arguments, and a side-effect warning. It could be slightly more complete by explaining how to choose this over sibling commands, but the simple tool shape lowers the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument,' matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action: 'Move focus downward and select the next track,' which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from raw_shift_up by direction, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like raw_next_track or raw_track_move_down.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action' and advises to 'inspect the command name first,' but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_shift_up, raw_next_track, or raw_track_move_down. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the action is static, takes no arguments, may open a dialog, and may change project state. This is useful transparency for a state-altering tool, though it does not address what happens when there is no editing action to undo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded: it names the operation, then the no-argument nature, then side-effect warnings. The 'Undo:' prefix slightly duplicates the tool name, but every sentence otherwise earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given 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, this description is complete. It covers what the action operates on, confirms no arguments are needed, and warns about possible dialogs and project state changes. The inspect-command-name advice adds necessary caution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly labeling the action as 'no-argument', which is consistent with the empty input schema and sufficient for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('undo'), a resource ('the most recent editing action'), and adds that it is a static, no-argument Audacity action. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like raw_redo or raw_undo_history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a caution ('inspect the command name first') and warns about dialogs or project state changes, but it does not explain when to use raw_undo versus raw_redo or raw_undo_history, nor does it provide exclusions. This is more of a safety note than usable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects such as whether the new track becomes selected, where it is inserted, or any prerequisites. For a mutation, this is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant words and is perfectly sized for a simple command.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description states what the tool does, but it does not provide context on when to use it relative to the many sibling track tools, nor does it mention any behavioral details like track placement or selection. It is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters, the description is not required to document them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Add), the resource (new mono audio track), and the target (project). It uniquely identifies the tool as distinct from track_add_stereo by specifying 'mono', so an agent can tell it apart without confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the resource type (mono), but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus track_add_stereo or other track-related tools. No exclusions or alternatives are given, making usage guidance only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description supplies some behavior: the tool reads the current region rather than taking parameters, and it is a read-only analysis rather than a mutation. However, it does not explain how foreground/background are determined, what the result looks like, or what happens if no region is selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences present purpose, prerequisite, and use case with no filler. The core action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the invocation requirement is covered, but with no output schema the description should state what the tool returns or displays. The ambiguity of how foreground and background are distinguished also remains unaddressed, leaving the agent with partial context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description adds useful stateful context by requiring a prior region selection, which is more than the empty schema conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the operation (analyze contrast) and the resource (foreground/background audio), and adds a WCAG accessibility use case that helps set it apart from sibling analyze_* tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear context ('checking accessibility compliance (WCAG)') and an explicit prerequisite ('Select a region first'). It does not mention when not to use it or name a preferred alternative, so no 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful guidance that this is a polling-style status check, but it does not describe what the status response contains, what statuses exist, or behavior for invalid or completed job IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. Purpose is first, usage context follows, and the parameter note is minimal and relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter status check and covers when to call it and how often. However, since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value or status-semantics information leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides the parameter name and type, while the description explains that job_id is 'returned by any auto_ pipeline tool'. This adds crucial provenance information beyond the schema and tells the agent where to obtain the value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the status of a running pipeline and scopes it to 'any auto_ pipeline', so an agent understands the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling check_transcription_status, but the 'auto_ pipeline' phrasing narrows the intended use enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after starting any auto_ pipeline, and it recommends polling every 15-30 seconds. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternative status tools, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the core behavior of moving the cursor, which is positive, but it does not mention edge cases like having no selected track or whether the selection/playhead is preserved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence fully communicates the action. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the essential target information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless cursor-movement command, the description is largely sufficient. It omits minor context such as behavior when no track is selected, but the core intent and outcome are clear given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic information to compensate for. The description adds the relevant semantic context by identifying the target location, which is sufficient for a parameterless command.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move') and a clear target ('end of the selected track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cursor_to_track_start and cursor_to_project_end by stating the exact destination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cursor_to_track_start or cursor_to_project_end. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior: a duplicate is created in a new track, implying the original is preserved. However, it does not state whether the selection is required, whether track properties like gain/pan/effects are copied, or whether the duplicate is independent of the source.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single seven-word sentence delivers the verb, target, and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and the key action verb is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome. Minor gaps remain — preconditions (selection required) and post-conditions (track position, copied attributes) — but these are small for such a simple action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is appropriately handled — the description itself becomes the sole behavioral specification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Duplicate'), a concrete resource ('selected audio'), and a clear result ('into a new track'). This distinguishes it from close siblings like edit_copy (clipboard copy) and edit_split_new (splitting, not duplicating), so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of preconditions (e.g., a selection must exist), and no reference to alternatives such as edit_copy or track_mix_and_render_to_new. The description tells an agent what the tool does but leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining whether the paste inserts over existing audio, whether it requires a non-empty clipboard, or what side effects it has on the selection. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, the object, and the location efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is largely sufficient to understand the operation. Minor gaps remain about insertion semantics and clipboard requirements, but given the simplicity of the tool, the current level is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the operation uses the current cursor position as the insertion point, which is relevant implicit context even though it is not a formal parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Paste' with a clear resource ('audio from clipboard') and destination ('at the cursor position'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like edit_copy and edit_split. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the use case: pasting clipboard audio at the cursor position. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives such as edit_copy or edit_split. The context is understandable but exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that speed changes tempo and pitch together and provides the percent range and example, but it does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires a selection, or is undoable, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the core behavior is stated in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation is minimal but complete. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter effect tool this is nearly complete, but it lacks usage differentiation from closely related siblings and any safety/undo guidance despite having no annotations. The core information needed to invoke the tool is present, though.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the 'Args: percent' section is essential. It provides the valid range (-99 to 4900) and a concrete example (100 = double speed), fully clarifying the parameter's meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening clause names a specific action and resource — change speed of selected audio — and explicitly clarifies that both tempo and pitch change together, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over effect_change_tempo or effect_change_pitch, nor when not to use it. The phrase 'selected audio' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether the effect is destructive, reversible, or how it modifies the audio beyond stretching. It lacks details about side effects, output behavior, or safety, which is a significant gap for an audio processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a clear header and a parameter list. It provides essential information without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to parse and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It includes the prerequisite of selecting audio, but does not specify the scope (e.g., selection vs. whole track), output behavior, or how it interacts with the project. Lacks details on whether the processing is reversible or if there are any side effects on surrounding audio.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are well explained: stretch_factor is described as the amount of stretch with a default of 10, and time_resolution is explained as affecting quality and speed, with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is an 'extreme time-stretch effect' that 'creates ambient/drone textures,' which is a specific and distinctive function. It is distinct from other effects like change_tempo or change_speed, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a prerequisite ('Select audio first') and parameter explanations, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative effects. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over other time-stretching or modulation effects, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the effect does but does not mention whether the operation destructively modifies the selection, whether undo is available, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear, structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The parameters are well-explained and no output schema is expected, so invocation details are mostly covered. However, without annotations, the description omits behavioral context such as destructiveness and selection requirements, leaving it slightly incomplete for an agent needing full confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with units, ranges, and defaults. For example, 'rate_change_start: Tempo change at start in % (-99 to 3000)' adds meaning not present in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('tempo and/or pitch') and scope ('across the selection'). The phrase 'sliding time stretch' plus 'gradually' distinguishes it from static pitch/tempo effect siblings like effect_change_pitch and effect_change_tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied through 'gradually across the selection,' which hints that this is for sliding rather than constant changes. No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided, even though adjacent tools like effect_change_tempo and effect_change_pitch exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter meanings and defaults but does not state side effects, whether the tone is inserted into a project, what the return value is, or whether the operation is non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. Every line provides necessary information and there is no redundant or tangential content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple generator, the purpose and full parameter documentation cover most selection and invocation needs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, a brief note on what the tool returns or whether it modifies the project would make it fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: valid DTMF characters for sequence, the meaning and range of duty_cycle, the amplitude range, and duration units. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Generate DTMF (telephone) tones' with a clear verb and specific resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_tone, generate_noise, and generate_chirp by identifying the exact kind of signal produced.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when DTMF telephone tones are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the many sibling generation tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses potential side effects: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, it is vague about the exact nature of these side effects and does not specify what changes occur or what the dialog entails. It also does not describe the output or return value, though no output schema is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, fitting into one sentence plus a short clause. It efficiently conveys the purpose, nature, and a caution without any unnecessary filler. The structure is logical: purpose, type, side-effect warning, and guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers essential aspects: purpose, that it is static with no arguments, potential side effects (dialog/state change), and a caution to verify the command name. It lacks explicit details about when to use it relative to other export commands, but for a simple utility command with no parameters, it provides enough context for an agent to understand its role and risks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty, so all parameters (none) are covered. The description redundantly states it is 'no-argument,' which aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning beyond confirming the absence of parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Export audio files in various formats.' It also clarifies it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' removing ambiguity about the command's nature. This distinguishes it from other export-related tools by specifying that it is a static, argument-free action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by noting it is a static, no-argument action and mentions it 'may open a dialog or change project state,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_export_audio. The advice to 'inspect the command name first' hints at caution but does not provide clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it may 'open a dialog or change project state,' which is a meaningful side-effect warning, and advises to 'inspect the command name first.' This goes beyond a bare statement and gives the agent actionable caution, though the 'command name' reference is unclear without a parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and uses no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'Static no-argument Audacity action' sets expectations, 'May open a dialog or change project state' warns of side effects, and 'inspect the command name first' gives a caution. It is appropriately sized for a trivial tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain behavior and return value. It does not describe what the help output looks like or whether text is returned, nor does it clarify how to specify a command name when no parameters exist. The ambiguity around the command name is a significant gap for an agent trying to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds a hint about 'inspect the command name first,' which implies some implicit input, but it is not a formal parameter. With 0 parameters, the rubric baseline is 4, and the description does not contradict the schema, though the hint is ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear purpose: 'Get help information for a command.' It names the verb (get) and resource (help information). It does not differentiate from siblings like raw_manual or raw_quick_help, and the phrase 'for a command' is ambiguous given the tool takes no arguments, but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides some context: 'Static no-argument Audacity action' and warns to 'inspect the command name first.' However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of raw_manual or raw_quick_help, nor does it clarify how the command name is specified given the absence of parameters. The usage guidance is present but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses likely side effects ('may open a dialog or change project state') and describes the action as static/no-argument. It doesn't specify exactly what state changes or what the dialog affects, but for a zero-parameter raw action the warning is meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose and add only relevant behavioral cautions. The leading 'ManageTools:' label is slightly redundant and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument, no-output-schema raw command in a large sibling group, the description covers core invocation and side-effect risk. It is incomplete about the manager's actual effects and when it should be chosen over siblings, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden; the description reinforces this with 'no-argument.' Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no further parameter meaning is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a concrete action ('Open ... manager') and a specific resource ('tools/effects/generators manager'), so an agent can identify what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with raw_manage_analyzers or raw_manage_macros, but the resource scope makes the distinction recognizable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It signals this is a static, no-argument action and warns that it may open a dialog or alter project state, which is useful guidance for how to invoke it. It does not state when to prefer this over related manage tools or what prerequisites to check before use, beyond 'inspect the command name first.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable caution beyond the simple 'open in browser' statement. The warning is somewhat vague but still meaningfully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence. The 'Manual:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, but every other phrase adds useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand how to invoke it: open the manual with no arguments. The side-effect warning is vague but does not prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are fully covered by schema structure; 0-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4. The description reinforces that this is a 'no-argument' action but does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open Audacity's manual in the default web browser') and the subject resource, so an agent can understand what the tool does. It is specific enough to be distinguishable from unrelated raw_* commands, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar help/about siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by calling it a 'Static no-argument Audacity action' and warns to 'inspect the command name first.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer raw_manual over alternatives like raw_help or raw_quick_help, nor does it give clear exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the action is static, takes no arguments, and may open a dialog or change project state. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is a meaningful behavioral warning beyond what the schema reveals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler, and the 'brief help message' purpose is front-loaded. Minor deduction: 'QuickHelp:' is a label rather than essential content, but overall the description is compact and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the important caveat about side effects. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying what happens after the help is displayed or by contrasting with longer help tools, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description explicitly reinforces that this is a 'no-argument' action, so there is no missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Display' with the resource 'a brief help message', which is identifiable from the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like raw_help or raw_manual, though 'brief' gives some implicit contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states this is a static no-argument action, which implies simple invocation, and warns about potential side effects. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over nearby help-related siblings such as raw_help or raw_manual, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a 'static no-argument Audacity action' and warns that it 'may open a dialog or change project state.' This is useful risk signaling, though the phrasing is hedged and does not specify which dialog or state changes could occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The final instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat vague and detracts slightly, but overall the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter raw Audacity action, the description covers the action, argument count, and a risk warning. However, it does not explain the return behavior, clarify what state changes are possible, or position itself among the many sibling save/project tools, so it is not fully complete for safe autonomous selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and the description explicitly confirms 'no-argument.' With no parameters to document, the description need not add more; the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the mention of being no-argument reinforces the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Save a compressed copy of the project.' The word 'compressed' meaningfully distinguishes it from close siblings such as raw_save, raw_save_as, and raw_save_copy. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives safety advice ('May open a dialog or change project state; inspect the command name first') but does not say when to use SaveCompressed versus alternative save/copy actions. There are no conditions, exclusions, or explicit routing to sibling tools, so the agent is left without selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does warn that the action may open a dialog or change project state, which is a meaningful side-effect disclosure. It stops short of specifying overwrite behavior or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by scope and risk. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is slightly vague, but the description remains efficient and focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter action the description gives purpose and a side-effect warning, but it omits sibling differentiation and specific outcome details such as destination, overwrite behavior, or confirmation. The 'inspect the command name first' instruction suggests the description is not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'no-argument' statement reinforces that no inputs are expected, though it mostly restates what the empty schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the operation precisely: save a lossless copy of the project. 'Lossless' distinguishes it from compressed save variants, and the 'copy' wording separates it from plain save/save-as siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only notes that it is a static no-argument action; an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to raw_save, raw_save_as, or project_save_as.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It warns that the command 'may open a dialog or change project state', which is useful side-effect disclosure. However, the wording is somewhat generic, and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague rather than concretely describing resulting behavior or output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. The trailing phrase 'inspect the command name first' adds little concrete value and is somewhat ambiguous, but the overall length is appropriate and not padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, static toggle action, the description covers the essential context: what it toggles, that it takes no arguments, and that it may affect project state. It does not explain the return value, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description explicitly reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 and the description adds confirming value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Toggle mute') and the resource ('the focused track'), which is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like track_mute or track_mute_all, though 'static no-argument Audacity action' hints at the raw/unfiltered nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this when you want to toggle mute on the currently focused track, with no arguments. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as track_mute_all or track_unmute_all, but the focused-track scoping is explicit enough to guide basic usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which adds some transparency about side effects. However, it does not specify what dialog, under what conditions, or the nature of state changes, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and adds a relevant caution in the second. No unnecessary words are present, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument action, the description covers the core function and warns about potential side effects. Since there is no output schema, explaining return values is unnecessary. The main gap is the vague 'inspect the command name first,' which could confuse an agent rather than clarify, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by clarifying the operation is a static no-argument action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Pan the focused track to the right.' It clearly identifies the resource (focused track) and the direction, distinguishing it from siblings like raw_track_pan_left and raw_track_pan. The term 'Static no-argument Audacity action' further clarifies the nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings exist such as raw_track_pan_left and raw_track_pan, the description does not mention them or provide criteria for selection. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not aid in when-to-use decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency for a mutation-capable raw command. However, it stays vague about what dialog may open or what state may change, and the term 'Static' is ambiguous rather than fully clarifying.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: it names the action first, then the static no-argument nature, then the side-effect caveat. Every phrase adds information and there is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema command, the description provides the essential facts: what the action does, that it takes no arguments, and that side effects are possible. The side-effect warning is somewhat generic, and it doesn't explain how 'horizontally' affects the Audacity view, but given the low complexity of the tool, the description is largely complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document beyond confirming the no-argument nature. The description explicitly says 'no-argument,' which matches the schema. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Zoom in horizontally.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_zoom_out, raw_zoom_sel, and raw_zoom_toggle. It also identifies it as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' pinning down both behavior and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its zoom siblings or other navigation tools. The caveat to 'inspect the command name first' is cautionary, not usage direction. There is no mention of when a user/agent should prefer raw_zoom_in over raw_zoom_out or raw_zoom_sel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and clarifies the call is static and no-argument, which is valuable. It could say more about what state changes or dialog may occur, but it is reasonably transparent for a simple action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the action first and then adding a caution about side effects. The leading 'ZoomOut:' label echoes the tool name, but the overall text is short and focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and a warning about possible dialogs or state changes. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague, and success/error behavior is not described, but these are minor gaps at this low complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema already shows an empty properties object, so there is nothing missing. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument', which meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action: 'Zoom out horizontally', which is a specific verb plus resource and distinguishes this from zoom-in or zoom-normal siblings. It also identifies it as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action', but it does not explicitly compare against related zoom commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a horizontal zoom-out is needed without arguments. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative sibling tools, so the usage guidance is more implied than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the primary effect (creating a label track) without disclosing side effects such as selection changes, undo behavior, or impact on existing tracks. This is the minimum possible for a mutation tool and lacks enrichment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence conveys the entire purpose with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core function. It does not mention return values or side effects, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is arguably complete enough for an agent to proceed correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter details since there are none. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add), the resource (a new empty label track), and the scope (to the project). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like track_add_mono/stereo which create audio tracks, and label_add which likely adds labels to an existing track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it—when you need to add a label track—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. For a zero-parameter tool with a straightforward purpose, this is adequate though minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool opens a Plot Spectrum window and targets the selected audio, but it does not explain what the window shows, whether it returns any data, or what happens if no region is selected. It is minimally transparent but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences: the first states the action and target, the second states the required precondition. Every sentence earns its place and the content is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless UI action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential details: what it opens, what it operates on, and the needed pre-selection. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining the nature of the Plot Spectrum window, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and no output schema, so the schema itself provides no semantics beyond an empty object. The description adds meaningful context by indicating the tool acts on 'selected audio' and requires a region, which is more useful than the empty schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open') and a specific resource ('Plot Spectrum window') on the selected audio, so its purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analysis tools like analyze_contrast, but the named window is distinctive enough to avoid major confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Select a region first.' This tells the agent the state required before invoking the tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but for a zero-parameter UI action this is adequate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must explain side effects, but it is ambiguous whether the original audio is preserved or removed, and whether multiple tracks are created. It only says 'a new track' without clarifying the exact split behavior or how the selection is affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple tool, but it does not mention prerequisites like having an active selection or how it handles multiple tracks. For such a straightforward operation, the description is mostly complete, though a note on distinctions from similar tools would enhance usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the description correctly relies on the current selection with no need for input. Since the schema already covers the absence of parameters, the description adds no additional requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (split), the target (selected audio), and the outcome (a new track at selection boundaries). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_split or edit_split_cut by specifying the creation of a new track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like edit_split or edit_split_cut. While the phrase 'into a new track' implies a distinct behavior, it does not state when to prefer this tool over the others, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency itself. It discloses the operation and reconstruction approach, but does not state that the effect modifies the selected audio in place, whether it is destructive, or how it handles borderline clipping. The word 'Attempt' does signal heuristic behavior, but key application context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tightly scoped parts: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. No filler or repeated schema information, and the main behavior is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter effect with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to call it; threshold semantics are fully specified. The main missing piece is the application context (selected audio) and a hint to detect clipping first, which would help an autonomous agent sequence it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds real meaning to threshold: it defines it as a percentage of max amplitude, gives a 0-100 range, and restates the default. The schema only provides a type and default, so this is a substantial addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('repair'), names the target resource ('clipped audio'), and explains the method ('reconstructing peaks'). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like effect_repair.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to apply this tool versus alternatives such as effect_repair or analyze_find_clipping. The context of an active selection or prerequisite is not mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action and the required selection context, but it does not mention whether the original audio is overwritten, whether the effect is undoable, or any other side effects. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the core action first and the prerequisite second. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema effect tool, the description includes the key operational requirement: select a region first. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could slightly improve by noting that the operation modifies the selected audio in place.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse the selected audio.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scopes it to the current selection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling effect tools, but 'reverse' is semantically distinct enough among the listed effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Select a region first' provides an explicit precondition and clear usage context: the tool operates on an existing selection. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative effect tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance required for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the dialog is modal and that the command blocks until the user closes it, an essential scheduling fact. It does not cover save/cancel semantics, but the key blocking trait is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the important blocking behavior without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless dialog-launching tool, the essential operational facts are present: what the dialog is, what it edits, and that invocation blocks until user closure. A note about confirm/cancel outcomes would be nice but is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of editable fields is supplementary; there are no schema parameters that need elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a specific verb and resource: it opens the metadata editor dialog and lists representative fields. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, and 'track metadata' is slightly imprecise for a project-level metadata dialog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the tool is for interactively viewing/editing metadata through a dialog. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as track_set_properties for programmatic track changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: it is a static no-argument action, may open a dialog, and may change project state. This warns the agent about potential side effects, though it leaves the exact nature of those effects undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional cautions about dialogs and project state are compact, though 'inspect the command name first' is slightly vague and not fully actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema action, the description covers the essential points: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. It is reasonably complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it, though return behavior is not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' which adds no new information but is accurate and consistent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Focus the first track.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from navigation siblings like raw_last_track, raw_next_track, and raw_prev_track without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as raw_last_track or raw_next_track. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable usage guidance for selecting this tool versus its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does meaningful work by warning that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advising care. It could be more specific about what state may change, but it is not misleading or silent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence contributes either purpose, scope, or a behavioral warning. The leading 'Log:' is slightly redundant with 'Open the Audacity log window,' but it is not a serious structural issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and a side-effect warning. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool, though the vagueness of 'may open a dialog or change project state' leaves some edge cases unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema fully documents that. The description reinforces the no-argument nature, which is the only meaningful parameter-related information an agent needs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Open the Audacity log window.' It also labels itself a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which distinguishes it from parameterized or stateful sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when to avoid it. The caution 'inspect the command name first' is useful but not a usage guideline; it gives no context about when raw_log is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and tells the agent to 'inspect the command name first,' but the warning is generic and does not specify when side effects occur or what state changes to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the command name and purpose in the first sentence. The closing caution about dialog/project-state changes is useful, though the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is slightly vague and costs a point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: direction of focus movement, no-argument nature, and possible side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to call safely, though the 'inspect' instruction remains underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, so an agent is not misled into expecting inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and target: 'Move focus backward from toolbars to tracks.' It also identifies the underlying Audacity command as 'PrevFrame' and classifies it as a static no-argument action, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like raw_next_frame or raw_prev_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the action statement: invoke when focus should move backward from toolbars to tracks. However, there is no explicit comparison with sibling navigation tools such as raw_next_frame or raw_prev_track, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It candidly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable side-effect transparency. The caveat to 'inspect the command name first' adds a cautionary note, though its meaning is somewhat unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the purpose before adding caveats. Each sentence earns its place, though 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer. Overall, it is efficiently structured without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation, the target of selection, and possible side effects. It could be more complete by distinguishing itself from near-identical siblings, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty property set. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds the relevant confirmation that no arguments are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action: 'Set selection from cursor to end of track.' This is a precise verb-resource statement that clearly conveys what the tool does. While there are similar sibling tools like select_cursor_to_track_end, the core intent is unambiguous and the 'SelEnd' label maps directly to the function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as raw_sel_start or select_cursor_to_track_end. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools that could achieve similar outcomes. The advice to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable usage guidance for choosing between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It openly warns 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is valuable side-effect disclosure for a toggle action. It could specify more about return behavior, but this is reasonably transparent for a no-argument tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: defining the action, stating its nature, and flagging side effects. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless action, the description covers purpose, invocation nature, and potential side effects. It does not detail return values or exact command resolution, but 'inspect the command name first' appropriately acknowledges that ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is little to explain. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling the action 'no-argument,' which helps avoid an agent assuming hidden inputs. No additional parameter meaning is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and object: 'Toggle sound-activated recording.' It also identifies the tool as a static no-argument Audacity action, which clarifies its role. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling raw_sound_activation_level, so some differentiation is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' implies this is a raw command wrapper, and 'inspect the command name first' offers a caution. Still, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over raw_sound_activation_level or transport_record-related alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and calls itself 'static,' which is useful, but it does not specify what state changes occur, whether they are reversible, or what 'inspect the command name first' actually entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The only mild redundancy is prefacing with 'StoreCursorPosition:' when the tool name already communicates that, but every other clause adds useful context about side effects and usage caution.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-argument command, the description gives enough context to understand purpose and warns about potential side effects. It could be more complete by explicitly connecting to raw_sel_cursor_stored_cursor and clarifying what 'inspect the command name first' means, but it is not inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, but there is no parameter meaning to elaborate on, so the rubric baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool stores the current cursor position for later selection, which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes this from related siblings like raw_sel_cursor_stored_cursor and cursor_set_position by emphasizing 'for later selection.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for later selection' implies the tool should be used before a stored-cursor selection command, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving usage largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful caution. However, the warning is vague and does not explain consequences like undoability, exact increment behavior, or what happens if no track is focused. 'Inspect the command name first' is oddly circular since the command name is already available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'TrackGainInc:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the rest is efficient and each clause adds useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that side effects may occur. It could still specify prerequisites more precisely, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple raw action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema is empty with zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' explicitly confirming that no arguments are needed, which adds clarity beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Increase the gain on the focused track.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_track_gain_dec (decrease) or raw_track_gain (set gain).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context—this is a static no-argument action on the focused track—but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over siblings such as raw_track_gain_dec or raw_track_gain. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints beyond the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the command 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is useful caveat information for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The remaining clauses add behavioral caveats without excessive padding, though 'TrackMoveBottom:' slightly duplicates the tool name and the final advisory is a bit vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless action with no output schema, the description covers what the command does, its no-argument nature, and potential side effects/dialog risk. It is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could more explicitly define what 'inspect the command name first' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to document. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'no-argument,' which supports correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move the focused track to the bottom.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like raw_track_move_top, raw_track_move_up, and raw_track_move_down, which involve different movement directions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_track_move_top or raw_track_move_up. It labels the action as static and no-argument, but offers no context about choosing this command or what makes it preferable over other track movement tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns about side effects: 'May open a dialog or change project state; inspect the command name first.' This discloses potential state changes and urges caution, which is transparent beyond just the action name. However, it doesn't specify exact return values, but no output schema is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct—three short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Zoom to fill the current selection') and then adds necessary caveats. There is no fluff or redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument tool without an output schema, the description covers the action and potential side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and what to be cautious about.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description confirms this with 'no-argument.' Since schema coverage is effectively 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Zoom to fill the current selection,' specifying the verb (zoom) and resource (selection). This makes it distinct from other zoom tools like raw_zoom_in/out, even though it doesn't explicitly compare, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like raw_zoom_in or raw_zoom_out. The description mentions it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action' but doesn't explain scenarios where this is preferred over other zoom options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but does not explain whether the resampling is destructive, whether the original audio is replaced, whether undo is possible, or what the actual effect on the project state will be beyond changing the sample rate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clearly labeled Args section. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second documents the parameter with meaning, examples, and validation. There is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter operation, the description is nearly complete: the parameter is fully documented and the target of the operation is clear. The only minor gap is the lack of information about the operation's side effects or return value, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is not a major omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default value, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'rate' is the target sample rate in Hz, offering concrete examples (44100, 48000, 96000), and adding the constraint 'Must be > 0'. This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Resample') applied to a specific resource ('the selected track') and identifies the key operation ('to a new sample rate'). This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like effect_change_speed or effect_change_tempo, which change playback characteristics rather than the underlying sample rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied clearly: use this tool when you need to change the selected track's sample rate. However, the description does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use it or mention any alternative tools that might be more appropriate for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action and that it is a prerequisite for many operations, but it does not state whether the selection replaces the current selection, how invalid indices are handled, or any other side effects. This is a notable gap for a state-changing command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences plus a parameter note. It front-loads the purpose, adds a usage hint, and documents the parameter with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter selection command, it provides the necessary parameter semantics and usage context. However, without annotations or an output schema, it omits behavioral details such as selection mode (replace vs. add) and error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only declares an integer named 'track' with no description coverage. The description adds the essential meaning: 'Track index (0-based)'. This fully compensates for the schema's silence on the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Select a track by index.' The singular 'a track' and the 'by index' mechanism distinguish it from siblings like select_tracks, select_all, and raw_select, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Many operations require selecting a track first' gives a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core action (moving the cursor to the track start) and specifies it applies to the 'selected' track, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (e.g., whether selection changes, playback position, or undo behavior). For a simple non-destructive action this is acceptable, but the description adds little beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and target, contains no filler, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is largely complete. It specifies the target (start of selected track) and the operation. It does not discuss prerequisites or interactions with other tools, but given its low complexity, this is not a significant gap. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use it versus the similar cursor_to_track_end, but the name already differentiates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe any parameters, and the schema already confirms there are none. No additional information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('move') and resource ('cursor to the start of the selected track'), which fully specifies the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cursor_to_track_end, cursor_to_project_start, and cursor_to_project_end by naming the exact destination. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when you want to jump the cursor to the start of the current track, but it does not mention exclusions or recommend alternatives such as cursor_to_track_end. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It explains parameters and defaults but does not mention whether the effect is destructive, applies to selection only, or whether it's undoable. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail parameters with defaults. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Does not mention selection context (e.g., applies to selected audio) or any output, but for a simple effect this may be implicitly understood. Lacks a bit of practical workflow guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters beyond the schema: frequency is the center frequency, q is sharpness with a note that higher values give narrower notches. This adds meaningful context and covers the entire parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'specific frequency' using a notch filter, with a concrete example (50/60Hz hum). This distinguishes it from other effects like equalization or high-pass filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an example use case (removing mains hum) which implies when to use, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic action but does not disclose whether the current project is re-pointed to the new file, whether an existing file at the path would be overwritten, or any permission requirements. The 'new .aup3 file' phrasing hints at non-destructiveness, but consequences remain unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by a critical usage guardrail and a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool without annotations or an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, trigger condition, and parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about side effects on the current project state, which would matter for a save-as operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'path' as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by specifying 'Absolute path for the new .aup3 file', adding both path type and expected file extension. It could further clarify overwrite or file-existence behavior, but it covers the core meaning well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('current project') and names the exact target format ('a new .aup3 file'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as project_save or project_open.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to call ('ONLY call when user explicitly asks') and when not to ('Do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is strong enough to prevent misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is valuable cautionary context beyond the tool's basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action first, then adds the no-argument note and the side-effect warning, all of which earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument tool, the description covers what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. The only slight gap is that 'inspect the command name first' is a vague instruction without explaining what to inspect or why.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is little to clarify. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' making the absence of required inputs explicit and helping the agent understand no schema details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: 'Move the cursor 15 seconds left.' It gives a specific verb, resource, and distance, and the mention of 'Static no-argument Audacity action' helps distinguish it from parameterized or alternative cursor movement tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like raw_cursor_left or raw_cursor_long_jump_right. The description implies its use for a 15-second left jump, but it does not state conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, the warning is hedged ('may') and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable on its own. The word 'Static' also sits awkwardly with the side-effect warning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, static nature, and side-effect caution, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter raw action with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, argument count, and side-effect risk. The main gap is that 'inspect the command name first' provides no practical method or pointer, leaving a cautious agent without a concrete next step.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument' — no further semantic burden exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the specific verb+resource pair ('Move the cursor') plus an exact quantifier ('1 second right'), which differentiates it from siblings like raw_cursor_short_jump_left and raw_cursor_long_jump_right. The mention of 'CursorShortJumpRight' as the underlying Audacity action also clarifies its role as a raw wrapper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case — a precise one-second rightward cursor movement — but never names alternative tools or states when to prefer it over raw_cursor_right, raw_cursor_long_jump_right, or cursor_set_position. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' hints at preflight verification but doesn't explain what to inspect or how.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful caution for a raw action. However, the warning is vague about the nature of those state changes, reversibility, or what side effects to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and object come first, followed by a concise side-effect caveat. Every sentence adds information and there is no redundant filler or schema repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter static action with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and flags potential side effects. It could be more specific about what project state might change or whether a dialog can block execution, but for this simple tool the guidance is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The description reinforces this by calling it 'no-argument,' which aligns with the empty input schema and leaves nothing for the agent to infer about arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Move focus upward and select the previous track.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related navigation tools like raw_shift_down or raw_prev_track. It also adds that it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' making the intent unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the tool's semantics but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools such as raw_shift_down, raw_next_track, or raw_prev_track. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives, and the advice to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (selects both tracks and time range) but omits any mention of side effects, such as whether the selection replaces the current selection or if it affects hidden/locked tracks. For a selection tool, this is adequate but not rich; it does not go beyond the obvious. A 3 reflects that it provides essential behavior but lacks nuance that could matter in edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. The key information is front-loaded ('Select all audio in all tracks') and the clarification about selecting both tracks and time range is concise. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter selection tool, the description is sufficient: it states what is selected (all audio, all tracks, time range). It does not need to describe return values (none) or elaborate on side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a bit more on whether it replaces existing selection could push it to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to explain, and it does not need to compensate for any gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Select all audio in all tracks' and adds 'Selects both tracks and time range.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_none or select_region, which select only part of the project. The verb and resource are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you want to select everything—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like select_tracks or select_region, nor does it state when not to use it. Given the tool's self-evident purpose, this is an implied usage scenario rather than explicit guidance, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the action (selecting a range based on cursor position) and the target (end of track), but it does not mention whether the existing selection is replaced, extended, or how the tool behaves if there is no active cursor position.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the start point, end point, and action. It could be improved by explicitly noting that it operates on the current track and that the selection replaces the prior selection, but those are minor gaps for this simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details; the phrase 'current cursor position' and 'end of the track' already anchors the semantic context for the no-parameter invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (select), a specific resource (from the current cursor position to the end of the track), and the scope of the selection. It clearly differentiates from siblings like cursor_to_track_end and select_clip by describing the exact range being selected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the phrase 'from the current cursor position to the end of the track,' so an agent can infer when this should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, e.g., when needing to select to the start of the track or select a clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the main behavior — deselecting all audio — but adds no extra context such as whether the action is undoable or scoped to the current project. For a zero-parameter action, this is minimally suficient but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single declarative sentence with no wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given 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 is largely complete: it identifies the action and scope. It could nominally mention it applies to the current project or clears selected audio across all tracks, but 'Deselect all audio' conveys the necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the input schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deselect all audio.' uses a specific verb (deselect) and a clear resource (all audio), fully stating the tool's effect. It distinguishes itself from sibling selection tools like select_all and select_region without needing to open their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied: call this when you want to clear the current selection across the project. However, the description does not explicitely say when to use it vs. alternatives or provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It's inferable from the name but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool reads playback position and returns seconds, but it does not specify behavior when transport is stopped, whether the position is relative to the project or selection, or whether any side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and the unit of the result, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value and its unit. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing edge states like stopped transport, but the low complexity makes this only a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's mention of 'in seconds' provides useful return-format context beyond the empty schema, earning the baseline score for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current playback position in seconds'), making the tool's function immediately clear. Among transport_* siblings such as transport_set_cursor, transport_play, and transport_stop, this read-oriented name and description clearly distinguish it as a position getter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: call this when you need the current playback position in seconds. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as whether playback must be active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the main side effect—adding labels to the project—and the threshold sensitivity. However, it does not mention what happens to existing labels, whether the operation is undoable, or any other side effects beyond adding labels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter documentation is minimal and directly useful, with no redundant filler or repetition of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it does, what it affects, and what the threshold means. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not address whether existing labels are overwritten or what the tool returns, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter: its valid range (0-100), its direction of effect ('lower = more sensitive'), and its default value (65). This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Find beats'), a clear resource ('selected audio'), and the outcome ('add labels at beat positions'). This distinguishes it from label-only tools and other analysis tools such as analyze_find_clipping or analyze_plot_spectrum.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when the user wants beat positions marked as labels on selected audio. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as raw_beatsand_measures, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly states that this writes sample data to an external file and limits the sample count, but it leaves overwrite semantics, how the format is selected, and response/error behavior implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The summary line is front-loaded with the action and target, and the two Args lines earn their place by defining both parameters compactly. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but without annotations or an output schema, the missing details about file overwriting, format selection by extension, and return value leave an agent making assumptions. The selected-audio precondition is stated, which helps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds essential meaning: path is an absolute output path and limit is the maximum sample count with a default of 100. It does not specify that the target format is likely inferred from the file extension, which is the only notable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('raw sample data from the selected audio'), and explicit output formats ('TXT, CSV, or HTML'). This clearly separates it from sibling audio-export tools like raw_export_audio and project_export_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context for when to use this tool: when sample-level numeric/text data is needed rather than an audio file. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Amplify the selected audio' but does not disclose whether the original audio is modified in place, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens if there is no selection. That is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the action and selection prerequisite appear first, followed by a terse Args block. Every sentence contributes meaning with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter audio effect, the description covers the operation, the selection prerequisite, and the full ratio semantics. It does not explicitly state the return value or confirmation behavior, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists a number with a default, while the description explains the ratio semantics with examples, the 'Must be > 0' constraint, and the default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Amplify the selected audio by a ratio.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling effects like fade, reverb, or normalize.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Select audio first.' This is clear context for proper use. It does not, however, name alternative effects or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it is size-limited, requires a prior selection, and surfaces a popup error when the selection is too long. It could add whether the operation is destructive or undoable, but the core runtime behavior is clearly conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the prerequisite, and the failure signal. No filler or repetition of schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter effect with no output schema, the description covers the essential success condition and error behavior. It does not state whether the effect can be undone, but the simple interface and explicit popup warning make it sufficient 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default and the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description adds selection-state context rather than parameter docs, which is appropriate for a tool with no formal inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('repair') on a specific resource (damaged audio) and adds a precise scope constraint (max 128 samples). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named repair/cleanup siblings such as effect_clip_fix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a concrete prerequisite ('select the damaged region first') and an explicit limit ('must be extremely short'), including the failure mode if violated. It does not name alternative tools for longer damage or other repair tasks, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, which is useful. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (matching labels, IDs, positions), what happens when no labels match, or whether search covers both point and region labels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized: core purpose first, then a practical use case, then parameter documentation. No redundant or filler sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter search tool, the description covers the main action and parameter well. However, with no output schema, it omits return value details and expected output format. Given the simple scope and sibling context, this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'Query' title. It does: 'query: Text to search for within label text' clearly explains the parameter's meaning and scope. A minor example or edge-case note would push it higher, but the single parameter is adequately explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Find labels whose text contains a search string (case-insensitive).' This clearly names the resource (labels), the operation (find by text), and a distinguishing behavior (case-insensitive substring matching).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when this is useful: 'locating a specific marker in a long recording without reading through every label.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like label_list or label_get_all, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does warn about audible artifacts above 20 dB and explains parameter trade-offs, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation destructively modifies the selected audio, whether it is undoable, or what happens if the required noise profile has not been captured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: main action first, mandatory precondition second, risk warning third, and a clean Args list last. Every sentence adds operational value, and the formatting makes the prerequisite and defaults easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter effect tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation order, parameter semantics, defaults, and risk guidance. It is only missing a bit of context about post-conditions, such as whether the selected audio is replaced or rendered and what error occurs if the noise profile precondition is not satisfied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter titles and defaults with zero description coverage. The description's Args block fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, units, allowed range, and default, plus practical guidance for the dB parameter. This is exactly the semantic enrichment the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply noise reduction') and the target resource ('the selected audio'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like click_removal or effect_repair by its name and focus, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit workflow ordering: call get_noise_profile first, select the audio, then call this tool. It also provides practical dB ranges for different cleanup scenarios. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives like click_removal or auto_cleanup_audio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does warn that the action may open a dialog or change project state. The word 'toggle' also signals a state change, and the caution to inspect the command name first adds useful side-effect awareness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the core behavior before the side-effect caveat. The leading 'ShowClipping:' label is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is terse, but there is no meaningful waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument command, it covers the essentials: purpose, invocation, and possible side effects. However, the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is unexplained, and the exact consequences of the toggle are left vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, the input schema is an empty object, and the description explicitly labels it as a no-argument action. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action and resource: toggles the display of clipping in the waveform. The wording is specific enough to distinguish it from related siblings like analyze_find_clipping, which detect clipping rather than show/hide a visual overlay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use it — when the user wants to toggle clipping visibility — and it explicitly says the action takes no arguments. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use it versus related commands such as analyze_find_clipping or raw_toggle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful. It does not explain what happens when there is no focused track or whether the action is undoable, but it provides some transparency beyond the bare operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds information: the action, the no-argument nature, and the potential side effects. There is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument command, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, confirms no arguments, and warns about possible side effects. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat cryptic and could confuse an agent looking for an input or external reference, so a full 5 is not warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameters and the description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action. Since there are no parameters to document, the description fully covers parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Move the focused track down one position.' The qualifier 'one position' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_track_move_bottom and raw_track_move_up, so an agent can select it correctly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the action statement: use this when you need to move the focused track down by exactly one position. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as raw_track_move_bottom or raw_track_move_up, and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is vague rather than actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises caution with 'inspect the command name first.' This goes beyond a bare statement of purpose and alerts the agent to possible side effects, though specific details are still vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The additional sentences about being static/no-argument and potentially opening a dialog are relevant and earned. The only minor issue is the redundant 'TrackPanLeft:' prefix, which repeats the tool name without adding much value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter action, the description covers the essential behavior and adds a useful side-effect warning. It does not mention return values or prerequisites like having a focused track, but given the simple scope and lack of output schema, this is a reasonably complete definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly calling it a 'no-argument' action, which confirms the agent does not need to supply any inputs. No further parameter-level detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Pan the focused track to the left.' This clearly identifies the action and direction, distinguishing it from siblings like raw_track_pan_right and raw_track_pan. The action is immediately understandable and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives useful context ('Static no-argument Audacity action') but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_track_pan_right or higher-level track_pan. The direction 'to the left' implies the usage condition, but no alternatives are named and no exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description takes on the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that the tool 'May open a dialog or change project state' despite its name, which is transparent about potential side effects. However, it does not detail the specific behavior or outcomes beyond this warning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, comprising two sentences. The first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides a necessary behavioral warning. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the primary action and includes a critical caveat about potential state changes, which is essential for an agent making a decision. While it does not specify return values or further details, the tool has no output schema and its behavior is sufficiently outlined for a command-like action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly indicates that it is 'no-argument'. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description fully aligns with the schema and adds no extraneous or conflicting information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Display') and identifies the resource ('undo history'). It also clarifies that it is a static, no-argument action, which distinguishes it from other commands that take parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a caution about potential side effects but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks a clear 'when to use' statement or comparison with related commands that might serve a similar purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly reveals that a new stereo audio track is created in the project, but it does not mention side effects such as selection behavior, whether a project must be open, or whether the operation is undoable. For a simple, non-destructive add operation this is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no redundant words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. The only ambiguity is the lack of explicit return-value information, but that is not necessary for such a simple mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the description accurately implies that the tool requires no additional configuration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Add'), a specific resource ('new stereo audio track'), and a destination ('to the project'). The 'stereo' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from the sibling track_add_mono, so an agent can tell them apart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the description and the tool name, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative such as track_add_mono is mentioned. An agent must infer that this is the tool for stereo tracks rather than the mono or label variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the global mute effect, but it does not mention reversibility, whether existing mute states are toggled or overridden, or that the operation is non-destructive. This is adequate for a simple command but lacks richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes the verb, resource, and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the operation and scope. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is complete, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The global scope statement reinforces that no target track parameter is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action ('Mute all tracks') and the scope ('in the project'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like track_mute (single/selected track) and track_unmute_all (the reverse operation). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The global scope implies when to use it: when all tracks should be muted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with track_mute or point to track_unmute_all as the reverse operation, so the agent must infer the selection boundary from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior — truncating or compressing silence in the selected audio — and notes that compress_percent only applies to the Compress action. However, with no annotations, a destructive audio edit should more clearly warn that the selected audio is modified, whether the change is undoable, and what happens if no audio selection exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence states purpose and use case, and the parameter list is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler. Repeating defaults from the schema is minor because the Args block is the only per-parameter documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All five parameters and both actions are documented, and the target is identified as the selected audio. Given there is no output schema or annotations, a note on return value or undoability would strengthen it, but the information provided is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the Args block fully compensates. It defines every parameter with units, defaults, and action-specific constraints, so an agent can construct valid arguments without any other documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation — truncate or compress silence in the selected audio — and adds the clarifying use case of removing dead air. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like edit_silence or edit_trim, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear usage context: removing dead air, and explains the two operating modes via the action parameter. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the top score, but the intended use case is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose operation semantics, label placement options, and a notable reliability caveat that several parameters are "not yet independently live-tested" and only mock-verified. However, it does not mention side effects on existing labels, whether a selection is required, or what the command ultimately returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is organized into a one-sentence summary, a practical use case, a reliability caveat, and a clean Args list. It is longer than the minimum but every section contributes useful information, and the Args section is scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the operation, use case, parameter semantics, and even reliability caveats, which is unusually complete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It falls short only by not clarifying prerequisites such as existing selection/audio project state or whether existing labels are preserved or replaced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively: all eight parameters are individually explained with units, allowed values, and defaults. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema fields, including threshold in dB, durations in seconds, and label_type options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Automatically label regions of sound separated by silence." This uniquely distinguishes the tool from manual label tools like label_add or interval-based label_regular_intervals, and the additional label_type details clarify the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear use case: "A good starting point for segmenting a long recording," and explains when to use label_type="between" for trimming silences with label_delete_regions. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name direct alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool does not contact Audacity, implying a read-only, local operation. However, it does not say what kind of runtime/server details are returned, whether any errors are possible, or how the information is structured, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. The key action, object, and the important behavioral qualifier are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool, and the description covers the essential reason to call it and what it returns at a high level. It could be slightly more informative by listing example runtime fields or clarifying the output format, but it remains complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description's clarity about being a local, non-Audacity informational call is sufficient; no parameter explanations are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('local server/runtime information'), and adds a critical scope qualifier ('without contacting Audacity') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like audacity_health or raw_device_info. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without contacting Audacity' gives clear contextual guidance: this tool is appropriate when server/runtime info is needed without involving the Audacity application. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses asynchronous behavior ('runs in background — returns a job_id immediately'), the processing pipeline, and a concurrency warning. However, it does not state whether the effect modifies the original audio in place, replaces it, or operates only on the current selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well organized: purpose, background behavior, pipeline, argument details, and a final warning. It is scannable and each section is useful, though there is some redundancy between the opening description and the later explanation of cutting highs and boosting low-mids.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, return value, monitoring pathway, concurrency constraints, and parameter semantics. Missing details are selection scope and what exactly happens after the job completes, but the reference to check_pipeline_status reduces the impact of that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only an unconstrained 'intensity' string with a default and no enum or description. The prose fully documents all accepted values ('light', 'medium', 'heavy'), their intended sonic character, and the default, completely compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Apply a vintage/lo-fi sound to your audio' and names it a 'CREATIVE LO-FI EFFECT.' The pipeline details and audio character help distinguish it from sibling effect tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar effects like equalization or filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit operational guidance: 'Use check_pipeline_status to monitor' and 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' This is a clear when-not with a named alternative, but it does not discuss when to prefer a different effect tool over this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and it does state the primary behavior: cursor movement to project end. It does not mention whether selection is cleared or playback is affected, but for a simple cursor command this is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence carries all the essential information with no filler. The parenthetical adds useful precision without bloating the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter cursor navigation tool, the description is nearly complete. The only small ambiguity is what exactly 'last audio' means, but in an audio-project context this is a reasonable shorthand for the end of the final audio clip.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('cursor') with an exact destination ('end of the project') and clarifies with '(last audio)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cursor_to_track_end and cursor_to_project_start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is clear in context: call this when the cursor should jump to the last audio in the project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the project-vs-track distinction is evident from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the bare name by stating the clipboard behavior and the selection prerequisite. Still, it does not disclose whether the deletion is undoable or whether any project/undo context is affected, which would be relevant for a destructive edit operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences deliver the action, a key behavioral distinction, and the prerequisite with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter edit command with no output schema, the description contains the essential information: what is deleted, that clipboard contents are not changed, and that a region selection is required. It leaves some safety context (undo behavior) implicit, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter details the description must add. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description is adequate without explaining parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the selected audio.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling copy/cut tools by explicitly stating 'does not copy to clipboard,' so an agent can tell edit_delete apart from edit_cut and edit_copy even without examining their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear precondition: 'Select a region first.' It also implies when this tool is appropriate rather than cut/copy by noting that it does not copy to clipboard. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling like edit_split_delete or edit_cut.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose prerequisites (overlap and selection) and the nature of the operation (crossfade). However, it does not state whether the effect modifies the original tracks destructively, whether it is undoable, or what happens to the selection afterward. The steps add useful behavioral context but leave the safety/impact profile unclear, which is typical for an effect tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by actionable steps. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and minimal complexity, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it does and how to prepare for it. It could optionally mention the relationship to effect_crossfade_clips or clarify that the crossfade replaces the overlapping section, but these are minor omissions. The description is adequately complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is already fully covered (100% coverage with an empty properties object). Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none exists, which is appropriate; the baseline holds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (crossfade) and the resource (two overlapping tracks), with a specific verb-noun pairing. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling effect_crossfade_clips by specifying 'tracks' rather than clips, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage steps: align tracks to overlap, select both, then run. This establishes the precondition and the exact invocation sequence, but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or that effect_crossfade_clips exists). Since it gives clear context without exclusion, it earns a 4, not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation flips the phase of the selected audio, which is the core behavioral effect. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, or whether a selection is strictly required, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences deliver the operation, target, and intended use with no filler. Every word contributes meaning and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless effect, the description is essentially complete: an agent knows what the tool does and on what it operates. It does not explain output or undo behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make that acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description need not document any. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and no additional parameter explanation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact operation, 'Invert (flip phase)', and the target, 'the selected audio'. This is specific and unique among the many sibling effect tools. The phrase 'useful for phase cancellation' adds meaningful intent without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states that the tool applies to selected audio and provides a concrete use case: phase cancellation. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter effect this is adequate contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and is a 'static no-argument' operation. It stops short of explaining what dialog or state changes could occur, but it responsibly flags side effects for what looks like a cursor movement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every clause adds information: exact behavior, no-argument nature, Audacity context, and side-effect warning. No filler or repetition beyond the command-name prefix, which itself is useful for matching the underlying action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema action, this is nearly complete: it gives the behavior, confirms no arguments, and warns about potential side effects. It loses one point because 'inspect the command name first' is an unusual instruction and no alternative-selection guidance is included, leaving a small amount of orientation work to the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. The description reinforces this by calling it 'no-argument,' leaving no ambiguity about invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening clause 'Move the cursor 1 second left' states a specific verb and resource with a precise magnitude, and the command label CursorShortJumpLeft echoes the exact Audacity action. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as raw_cursor_long_jump_left and raw_cursor_short_jump_right.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The effect statement implies the natural use case—moving the playhead/cursor left by one second—but the description never names sibling alternatives or states when not to use it. There is no explicit 'use X instead' guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection from direction and jump size.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which alerts the agent to potential side effects. This is transparent, though it doesn't specify what dialog or state changes might occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action, the second warns about side effects. It is front-loaded with purpose, includes no fluff, and each phrase adds value. It's appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool with no output schema, the description provides necessary safety context (possible dialog/state change) and the action itself. It doesn't explain what the karaoke window does, but that may be unnecessary for a display action. It's sufficient, though the instruction to inspect the command name adds a minor extra step but not missing critical info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (empty schema), so the description has nothing to add. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description correctly avoids mentioning parameters because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Karaoke: Display the karaoke window' – a clear verb-action pairing that specifies exactly what the tool does. It also notes it's a no-argument action, which aligns with the empty schema. There is no sibling with a similar name, so differentiation is not an issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the purpose but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'Static no-argument Audacity action' implies it's a simple command, and the warning to inspect the command name first suggests caution, but there is no conditional guidance or mention of alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by warning that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advising to 'inspect the command name first.' This is useful caution for a tool whose effects are not guaranteed to be read-only. It does not overstate safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the invocation constraint and behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential information: what it opens, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it safely, though 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and the description reinforces this with 'no-argument.' With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the baseline is 4 because there is little parameter meaning to add beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Open the analyzers plugin manager.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like raw_manage_macros and raw_manage_tools, which manage different plugin types. The name and description align without tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when the agent needs to open the analyzers plugin manager. It also states it is a 'static no-argument Audacity action,' which gives invocation guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling management tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action may open a dialog or change project state and advises caution by inspecting the command name first—transparent about potential side effects without over-specifying.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by a brief caution. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument, no-output-schema raw action, the description covers what it does and warns of side effects. It does not detail the exact dialog or state changes, but for a simple navigation command this is sufficient and complete enough for an agent to call it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is trivially 100%. The description explicitly confirms 'no-argument', reinforcing the schema. This satisfies the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool moves focus forward from toolbars to tracks, providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling raw_prev_frame and other navigation tools, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is a static no-argument action and advises inspecting the command name first, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like raw_prev_frame or state when to choose this over other focus/navigation commands. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses potential side effects: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' It also suggests inspecting the command name for further details. This is good disclosure given there are no annotations, though it could be more specific about the exact behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It conveys the essential information without redundancy or irrelevant details, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description gives the core action and side effects, it lacks context about what audio is affected (e.g., selection) or any prerequisites. It does not mention the return value, but that may be irrelevant given the potential for dialogs. However, more completeness about the effect's scope would improve the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters in the schema, and the description explicitly states 'no-argument,' leaving no ambiguity about argument handling. Since the schema is empty, no additional parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Apply an extreme time-stretch effect.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also mentions 'Paulstretch' which distinguishes it from other effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by warning about potential dialogs or state changes and advising to 'inspect the command name first.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'effect_paulstretch' or other time-stretch tools, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is useful side-effect transparency. It does not enumerate all possible state changes, but for a toggle action the primary effect is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional notes about being static and potential side effects each add relevant information. The 'PlayStop:' prefix is slightly redundant but harmless.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it toggles, that it takes no arguments, and potential side effects. It omits an explicit comparison to raw_play_stop_select, but the toggle semantics are sufficient for correctly invoking this simple action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' matching the schema exactly. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Toggle playback on and off.' It further clarifies it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which helps distinguish it from parameterized or play/stop siblings. This is not a tautology and clearly conveys what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose statement implies when to use the tool (when toggling playback), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like raw_play_stop_select, transport_play, or transport_stop. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a usage routing directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is a meaningful and non-obvious side-effect disclosure for a navigation-like command. The 'static no-argument' phrasing and 'inspect the command name first' caution add further signal about its expected behavior, going beyond a bare restatement of the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no wasted words: purpose, invocation style, and side-effect caution all appear in logical order. It does not repeat schema content or bloat the entry with generic filler. The slightly ambiguous 'inspect the command name first' still earns its place as an important safety note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is static and argument-free, and that it may have project-wide effects. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'focus' means operationally, what 'inspect the command name first' actually requires, and whether any return value is produced, but these are not critical for a simple no-arg action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing additional to document. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' giving the agent immediate confirmation that no inputs are needed. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools and adds a useful explicit restatement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Focus the previous track.' The 'PrevTrack' label ties it to a distinct Audacity command, clearly distinguishing it from sibling navigation tools like raw_next_track and raw_first_track. There is no ambiguity about what operation is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides only implied usage guidance by characterizing the tool as a 'static no-argument Audacity action.' It does not explicitly state when to choose this command over alternatives, nor does it mention siblings such as raw_next_track. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a clear usage directive, leaving when-to-use largely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the command 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable side-effect transparency for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It could be more specific about what dialog or exactly how project state may change, but it does not hide the risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The warning about dialogs and project state is placed after the main action, which is appropriate. Minor redundancy exists in the 'Print:' prefix followed by 'Print all waveforms,' but overall the description is economical and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. It does not explain the return value or how to 'inspect the command name first,' but these are minor gaps for a simple static command wrapper.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is an empty object, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explicitly stating this is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' so an agent knows no arguments should be supplied. This exceeds the baseline for zero-parameter tools because it actively rules out parameter confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Print all waveforms in the current project.' It also categorizes the tool as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which clearly distinguishes it from parameterized or exporting sibling tools. The purpose is immediately actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when the user wants to print all waveforms with no arguments. It also cautions that the command 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like raw_export_audio or project_export_audio, nor does it state conditions when another tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 that the command 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises to 'inspect the command name first,' which usefully warns about potential mutability and operational side effects beyond the basic redo semantic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. It opens with the core purpose, then adds the no-argument qualifier and the behavioral caution, each earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument command with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, the risk of dialogs/state changes, and a caution to inspect before acting. The only slight weakness is the vague 'inspect the command name first' instruction, but it does not prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is essentially nothing to document. The description reinforces the schema by explicitly labeling the command 'no-argument,' fully aligning with the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Redo the most recent undone action' — a specific verb, resource, and precise scope. It also notes it is a 'static no-argument Audacity action,' which helps distinguish it from parameterized raw_* commands and implies its relationship to raw_undo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer it should be used to redo the most recent undone action, but there is no direct comparison to raw_undo or guidance on when not to use it. The 'static no-argument' phrase provides some context about invocation simplicity, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which alerts the agent to potential side effects. The additional advice to 'inspect the command name first' hints at possible ambiguity in the underlying command, adding valuable caution. However, it does not disclose reversibility or whether the action is destructive, which would be richer, but the provided warnings are a solid baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, fitting in two short sentences plus a warning fragment. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds necessary caveats about potential side effects and verification. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-argument action, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its lack of arguments, and potential side effects. It also hints at the need for command verification, which is relevant given the tool's naming. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could specify the requirement of a focused track more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'no-argument,' which is helpful for an agent to know it should not supply any arguments. This aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Close the focused track,' a specific verb and resource that precisely states the tool's purpose. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling track tools like track_remove or track_mute, which have different intents. The mention of 'Static no-argument Audacity action' further clarifies it is a direct command without parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context by noting it is a static no-argument action and advising to 'inspect the command name first,' which suggests caution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when to use this tool over similar track-related actions. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., a focused track) or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Remove' clearly signals a destructive action on selected tracks, but the description adds little beyond the tool name and does not mention undoability, confirmation behavior, or consequences for track content. The selection precondition is useful but primarily supports usage rather than behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the only prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the necessary precondition. It could add a brief note about undoability or permanent deletion, but given the simplicity and sibling context, the definition is nearly sufficient as-is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this fully with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the prerequisite about selecting tracks is the relevant input-state semantics. This aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('currently selected track(s)'), and differentiates itself from selection tools like track_select by making clear it operates after selection. It also implicitly distinguishes from edit_delete by targeting tracks rather than audio regions or selections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to select tracks first with track_select, giving a clear precondition for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternative deletion tools or state when not to use it, but the zero-parameter, selection-based design makes the usage context mostly unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the operation deletes audio and leaves silence, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention undo or other side effects, but the destructive nature is evident from 'Delete', and the silence behavior is clearly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete the selected audio') and immediately clarifies the distinguishing detail. There is zero fluff and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the operation's effect on the selected audio. It is complete enough for an agent to understand exactly what will happen when the tool is invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no properties). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'the selected audio', and explicitly distinguishes the behavior by noting it does not close the gap but leaves silence. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like edit_delete or edit_cut, which likely close the gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the intended use case (when silence should remain after deletion) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer usage, but explicit routing to siblings like edit_delete is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the trigger mechanism, control-track placement, and selection requirement, but it does not state whether the effect is destructive/undoable, how the control track is treated, or what the resulting output will be.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized: purpose, setup steps, then a single Args block. It front-loads the core behavior, avoids redundant prose, and every line contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter optional effect with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation, all parameter semantics, and required setup. The main gap is the lack of detail about reversibility and the exact scope of modification (track vs. clip), which leaves a small but non-fatal ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All seven parameters are documented in the Args block with meanings, ranges, and defaults, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. For example, threshold_db is explained as 'Threshold for duck trigger in dB (-100 to 0)' rather than being left as a bare numeric property.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'automatically reduce volume when audio is detected on another track.' This clearly identifies the sidechain-ducking behavior and separates it from other effect tools like amplify or fade without requiring schema inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage context: place the control track above the track to duck and select the target track before running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over sibling effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does convey useful behavior: it targets 'selected audio' and guarantees tempo preservation, and explains semitone sign. However, it omits whether the effect is destructive/undoable or whether a selection is strictly required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus a clean Args block. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter effect tool, it explains the action, the parameter, and the scope ('selected audio'). It lacks notes on prerequisites or return behavior, but no output schema is expected and the calling contract is otherwise clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by giving units ('semitones'), sign semantics ('negative = lower, positive = higher'), and hence the meaning of the default 0. This adds real value beyond the bare schema title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Change the pitch of the selected audio' and adds the distinguishing constraint 'without changing tempo.' This clearly separates it from siblings like effect_change_tempo and effect_change_speed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Without changing tempo' gives clear context for when to choose this tool over tempo/speed alternatives, even though no sibling name is explicitly mentioned and there is no when-not-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the state-dependent requirement (selecting the junction point) and the scope (same track, adjacent clips), but it does not disclose reversibility, failure conditions, or what happens to the clips beyond the crossfade.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the most essential information is front-loaded: the action in the first sentence and the prerequisite in the second. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, output-schema-less effect command, the description provides the action, object constraints, and required selection state. It lacks only a brief note on selection validity or failure behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero input-schema parameters, and the description compensates by documenting the real implicit input: the selected junction point between two adjacent clips. This is exactly the semantically important state an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact verb ('Crossfade'), the resource ('clips'), and the constraints ('adjacent clips on the same track'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like effect_crossfade_tracks or individual fade effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It communicates when the tool is applicable: only for two adjacent clips on the same track, and provides a concrete precondition ('Select the junction point between two clips first'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it applies a fade-in to selected audio, indicating a mutation. It does not disclose whether it is destructive, reversible, or any side effects, but given no annotations, it carries the burden. For a simple effect, the behavior is mostly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the action and the prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it has no parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description is complete. It tells what it does and the prerequisite, enough for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% trivially, so the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a fade-in to the selected audio, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling effect_fade_out by specifying fade-in. The prerequisite about selecting the region further clarifies the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to select the region before applying, which is a direct usage guideline. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but for a simple effect this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core effect (removes low frequencies) and parameter defaults, but does not mention whether it applies to the current selection, if it is destructive/irreversible, or any side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks explicit statements about the operation's scope and reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a short purpose statement, a usage hint, and a clearly formatted args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information (function) is front-loaded. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: it explains the effect, the usage context, and each parameter with defaults. The only missing piece is an explicit statement about the audio selection scope (e.g., applies to selected audio), which is likely implied by it being an effect. Overall, it's complete enough for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: frequency is in Hz with a default of 40 and explains its purpose (sub-bass rumble removal); rolloff options are enumerated ('dB6' and 'dB12') with meaning (6 dB/octave vs 12 dB/octave). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (apply) on a specific resource (high-pass filter) and explains its function (removing low frequencies below a cutoff). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling low-pass filter by mentioning 'high-pass' and the direction of frequency removal. Explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit context: 'Essential as step 1 in mastering chains to remove sub-rumble.' This tells the agent when to use it (mastering, sub-rumble removal). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough for selection among effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the selected region becomes the noise profile, that the profile is consumed by noise_reduction, and that applying reduction is a separate subsequent call. It stops short of stating explicitly whether the audio selection is modified, but 'capture' plus the two-step explanation make the non-destructive intent reasonably clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description leads with the main purpose, adds an important precondition in caps, and then gives the workflow. It is slightly longer than necessary because the 'How it works' sentence partly repeats the capture/apply distinction, but each section contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what to select, what the tool produces, and how it connects to noise_reduction. It does not describe failure behavior or whether the profile persists globally, but these are secondary for a simple capture action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero formal parameters, so the parameter-semantics burden is minimal. The description still adds relevant operational context by telling the agent to pre-select a pure-noise region, which effectively constitutes the tool's input even though it is not a schema parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('noise profile') with a clear scope ('currently selected audio region'), and differentiates from the sibling noise_reduction by stating the profile is used by that tool. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows exactly what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the required precondition (select 0.5-2 seconds of pure noise) and explains the two-step relationship with noise_reduction: first capture a profile, then apply reduction. It does not spell out 'use noise_reduction instead' as an exclusion, but the workflow is clear enough for correct routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains the default behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the default for each parameter ('unchanged'). However, it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or what happens with invalid indexes. It also does not state whether the operation is reversible or if it returns anything. This is a mutation tool with no annotations, so more disclosure would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with an introductory sentence, a prerequisite note, usage examples, and a clear Args list. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The structure makes it easy to scan and use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple edit tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description covers all essential aspects: how to obtain the index, which fields can be changed, and their default semantics. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or whether both start and end can be changed simultaneously, but these are minor given the clear 'fields you pass are changed' statement. The tool is adequately specified for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides thorough explanations for all four parameters. It details 'index' as a flat label index from label_list, and defines 'text', 'start', and 'end' with units and default behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema (which has 0% coverage), effectively compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Edit an existing label's text and/or timing.' It specifies the resource (labels) and the actions (text and timing change). It also gives concrete usage examples, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like label_add or label_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: 'Get the index from label_list' is a prerequisite, and the examples show how to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when creating a label), but the context is strongly implied. It offers enough direction for an agent to know it is for editing existing labels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that 'the labels themselves stay where they are' and positions the tool as the inverse of label_split_regions. However, it does not disclose whether the join is destructive, whether it affects the underlying audio clips permanently, or whether undo is available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action appears in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds necessary operational detail without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given 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 everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it does, the required selection setup, which tracks it applies to, and the behavior of labels. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no explanation. The description adds meaningful context about selection and scope, going beyond the empty schema. This meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Join the audio clips across every labeled region back together.' It further distinguishes itself by naming the inverse tool, label_split_regions, so an agent can tell this operation apart from its close sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for use: it acts on labeled regions within the current selection on selected audio tracks, and instructs the agent to select tracks and a time range first. It names the inverse relationship with label_split_regions but does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or list exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the main action, but does not mention resulting project state, whether existing tracks are preserved, failure behavior on invalid paths, or what the tool returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a minimal and clear parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the target project, the file type, and the required path semantics. It could be slightly stronger by noting the expected result, such as tracks being created, but the essential calling context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the parameter name and type, so the description's 'Absolute path to the MIDI file (.mid, .midi)' adds crucial semantics: it specifies the path format and accepted file extensions. For a single-parameter tool, this fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Import a MIDI file into the current project.' The file type 'MIDI' and target 'current project' clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like project_import_audio and raw_import_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is clear: use this tool when a MIDI file needs to be imported into the current project. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for audio imports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so by warning that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state'. It also advises inspecting the command name first, which is useful cautionary context beyond the input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side-effect caveat earns its place as a warning. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the magnitude, the no-argument nature, and the potential side effects. Nothing essential is missing 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument', confirming there is nothing else the agent needs to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Move'), a specific resource ('the cursor'), and a precise amount ('15 seconds right'). It also distinguishes this from sibling cursor tools by noting it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this when the cursor needs to move 15 seconds to the right. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as raw_cursor_right or raw_cursor_long_jump_left, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is important for a save operation. It doesn't describe cancellation behavior or file-path switching, but the key side effects are flagged.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but there is no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and side effects and gives a caution. It leaves the 'inspect the command name first' instruction unexplained and doesn't explicitly compare against sibling save tools, but the core invocation context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers this 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description appropriately adds none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Save the current project under a new name.' The current-project plus new-name framing clearly distinguishes this from raw_save (save) and raw_save_copy (save a copy), even without naming them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the current project should be saved under a new name. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like project_save_as or raw_save_copy, but the framing gives enough guidance for a no-argument tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first. This gives meaningful caution beyond the bare 'toggle solo' phrasing, though it remains somewhat hedged about the exact side effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds the necessary risk warning. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema raw command, the description covers what the tool does, confirms it requires no arguments, and warns about potential side effects. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which is immediately useful even though the schema already makes the absence of arguments obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Toggle solo on the focused track.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like raw_track_mute or raw_track_close, and leaves no ambiguity about what action it performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description identifies this as a no-argument action for the focused track, which implies when it would be used relative to track operations. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as raw_track_mute or explain when solo should be preferred, nor does it state any preconditions like requiring a focused track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get information' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive query, and mentioning returned data types adds transparency. It discloses no side effects and is not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, resource, scope, and examples all earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool and understand the returned scope. Nothing essential is missing for this simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no undocumented inputs. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('tracks in the project'), and a well-defined scope ('all tracks'), plus concrete examples of the information returned ('names, types, rates'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like track_set_properties and from project_get_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving track-level information, so an agent seeking track facts would understand its use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as project_get_info for project-level metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the operation creates a new track while preserving original tracks, which is the key safety-relevant behavior. It could mention failure behavior or resulting track properties, but the most important side effect is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what happens, the non-destructive nature, and the required user action. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The description appropriately focuses on usage rather than parameters, which do not exist here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact verb and resource ('Mix and render selected tracks into a new track') and clearly states the non-destructive outcome ('keeping the originals'). This also distinguishes it from the sibling track_mix_and_render, which likely replaces the originals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit precondition ('Select tracks first'), which is useful guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like track_mix_and_render, nor what happens if no tracks are selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the scope ('all tracks in the project') and the action (unmute), but adds no detail about edge cases, idempotence, or effects on selection. This is adequate for a simple state-change command but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It states both the operation and its project-wide scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter information missing. The baseline of 4 applies as the description need not compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Unmute') and resource ('all tracks in the project'), which precisely identifies the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like track_mute_all and track_mute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to unmute every track in the project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter, self-contained command, the context is clear and no conflicting alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the key side effect: audio is cut but silence remains, so the gap is not closed. It does not mention clipboard behavior, which separates split-cut from split-delete, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence states the action and the critical caveat in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and the key distinction is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless operation, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target and the resulting timeline state. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the cut audio is placed on the clipboard, which matters when distinguishing from edit_split_delete or when preparing to paste.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no further parameter documentation is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Cut'), a resource ('selected audio'), and the defining behavior ('without closing the gap... leaves silence where audio was'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_cut and edit_delete that would close the gap or remove time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the usage context clear: use this when you want selected audio removed but the timeline position preserved as silence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition 'without closing the gap' is sufficient guidance for choosing among the split/edit siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The parenthetical 'delete everything except selected region' explicitly communicates the destructive effect, leaving no ambiguity that this tool removes audio. It could add more context about prerequisites such as requiring an active selection, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. The parenthetical adds immediate clarity without redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given 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 is nearly complete: it states the operation and its result. It only omits an explicit mention that a selection must already exist, but this is strongly implied by the wording and the tool name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The standalone baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Trim') and resource ('audio outside the selection') and clarifies the exact behavior in parentheses: 'delete everything except selected region.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_cut or edit_delete, which target the selected region rather than everything outside it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a selection exists and the user wants to keep only that selected region while discarding all other audio. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is specific enough that an agent can infer the correct usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important atomicity behavior: every item is validated before anything is sent to Audacity, so a bad item fails the whole call rather than leaving a half-written list. It also explains the default behavior for the optional end parameter. It does not mention undo behavior, permissions, or return values, but the disclosed validation behavior is substantive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well front-loaded with the batch purpose, then gives the exact item structure and the atomic validation behavior. The Args line somewhat repeats the item shape already explained above, but the repetition is concise and the overall length is reasonable with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter format, defaults, and the critical failure behavior. It does not describe the success return value or broader side effects, but those are less critical for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description coverage for the labels parameter, but the description fully documents the item shape: {'start': seconds, 'end': optional and defaults to start, 'text': optional}. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Add many labels at once — a whole marker list in one call.' It clearly distinguishes this batch tool from a singular label tool like label_add by emphasizing the batch/many nature and the marker list format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this tool should be used when adding multiple labels in one operation ('a whole marker list in one call'), which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the batch focus is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the clipboard behavior, the need for selection, the timeline closing (regions collapse), and the advice to re-read label_list. It also mentions it's not yet independently live-tested. This is transparent about side effects and current reliability, though it omits undo behavior or other potential pitfalls, so not a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact—four sentences—and front-loads the core action. It includes necessary prerequisites and behavior in a logical order, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what to do first, what happens to labels, and how to verify results. It also notes its testing status. It's slightly incomplete in that it doesn't mention undo or error handling, but given the simplicity, it's largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds context about what the operation acts on (selected audio tracks/regions) but no parameter-specific details are needed. Per the rubric, with 0 params, baseline is 4; this holds as the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Cut the audio under every label to the clipboard, closing the gaps.' It specifies the resource (audio under every label) and result (clipboard, gaps closed). It also differentiates from siblings by describing the timeline closing up, making it distinct from delete/silence/split/join.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to select audio tracks and time range first, and notes the behavioral consequence that labeled regions collapse. It names sibling tools as a contrast, implying when this tool might be chosen (when gaps should close) versus others, though it doesn't give a full when-not matrix. Still, it provides clear context and an actionable prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior beyond a simple 'list': it returns labels sorted by Audacity's flat index and clarifies that this index is what label_edit and label_delete expect. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'List every label' strongly implies that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: it announces the core function in the first sentence, then adds the most useful operational detail (flat index and relationship to editing/deleting) in the next two sentences. Every sentence contributes value with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned, the sort order, and how the result should be used. The agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and understand the returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, and it correctly focuses on output and usage context instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('every label'), and the returned fields ('index, timing and text'). It also distinguishes this tool from label_edit and label_delete by explaining that it provides the flat index those tools consume, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling label_get_all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: 'Call this first whenever you need to modify a specific label, rather than guessing an index.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool, how to chain it with label_edit/label_delete, and what mistake to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive ('without removing anything'), that labels remain unchanged ('The labels themselves stay where they are'), and that it acts on selected tracks and time range. This goes beyond the obvious implication of the name, providing useful behavioral detail for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact paragraph with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by essential clarifications (non-destructive, scope, preconditions, label behavior). Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers the key points an agent needs: what it does, that it's non-destructive, that it requires a selection and selected tracks, and that labels persist. It could mention that splitting results in separate clip regions, but that is implied and not critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, and it correctly omits any param details. Baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Split the audio clips at every label boundary.' It clearly differentiates from sibling edit tools (like edit_split) by specifying the label-driven trigger and the non-destructive nature ('without removing anything'), and from label manipulation tools (e.g., label_cut_regions, label_delete_regions) by the phrase 'without removing anything' and 'labels stay where they are.' The scope is also explicit: acts on labeled regions within the current selection on selected tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit preconditions: 'select the audio tracks and time range first.' It also implies when to use it by stating it does not remove anything, which suggests using this tool when you need to split without deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where deletion is desired (e.g., label_cut_regions, label_delete_regions), so it lacks full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the user controls when saving happens, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens during the save operation (e.g., whether it overwrites without confirmation, prompts for file path if unsaved, or fails silently if no project is open). This is a notable gap for a mutation-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The core action ('Save the current Audacity project') is front-loaded, and the usage guardrail follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given 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 essential elements: what it does and when to call it. It does not mention error handling or return values, but these are often not critical for a simple save command. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use this tool correctly in most scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter-specific details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description focuses on the tool's purpose and trigger condition rather than redundant parameter info, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Save the current Audacity project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling save variants like project_save_as or raw_save by emphasizing 'current project'. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage conditions: call 'ONLY when the user explicitly asks to save' and explicitly warns against auto-saving after effects or pipelines. This provides a clear guardrail and effectively differentiates when to use this tool versus not, without needing to name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that it may open a dialog or change project state, which is important since no annotations are provided. It also advises inspecting the command name first, adding a layer of caution, though it remains somewhat vague about exact side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, comprising two sentences that convey purpose, argument expectations, and side-effect warnings without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and side effects adequately. It could be improved by elaborating on what the report contains or how it is delivered, but it is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description adds clarity by confirming it is 'no-argument'. Since schema coverage is complete (no properties), the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description reinforces the lack of arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it generates a support report for troubleshooting, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling raw_* commands by its unique purpose of crash report generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage guidance by noting it is a static no-argument action and warns about potential side effects. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when to prefer it over other commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses async execution, immediate job_id, the full DSP pipeline (DC offset, HPF, noise reduction, compression, RMS, peak cap), ACX target values, and a concurrency warning. It stops short of stating whether the source audio is modified in place or where the finished audio is written.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but well organized: purpose, async behavior, pipeline, ACX specs, parameter, and warnings. Every sentence carries actionable information and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an async tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the pipeline, compliance targets, parameter semantics, monitoring path, and concurrency. The main omissions are what audio it acts on (current selection/project) and how the finalized mastered audio is delivered after the job completes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a bare boolean with a default; the description adds real meaning by explaining 'Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile,' reinforcing the default, and adding the crucial prerequisite that the first 0.5s must be room tone or silence when remove_noise is true.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'ONE-CLICK AUDIOBOOK MASTERING: ACX/Audible compliant processing,' which specifies the verb (mastering), the resource (audiobook), and the compliance target. This clearly distinguishes it from music-mastering and editing siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says the job runs in the background, to monitor via check_pipeline_status, and includes a strong when-not: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' It also states the room-tone prerequisite for remove_noise. It doesn't enumerate alternatives for other mastering types, but the audiobook-specific scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a solid job: it reveals asynchronous execution, immediate job_id return, the exact pipeline stages, the room-tone requirement, and the no-concurrent-call restriction. It does not state whether the operation is destructive/reversible or whether it applies to a selection or the whole project, which are notable gaps for a processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear headline, pipeline summary, parameter breakdown, and warnings. Each section adds actionable information, and there is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the asynchronicity, monitoring path, pipeline behavior, both parameters, and an important input precondition. However, it omits what exactly the tool operates on (selection, track, or project), whether the change is destructive/undoable, and any details about how the job result is delivered beyond check_pipeline_status. Given no output schema, a bit more would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does: remove_noise is explained as applying noise reduction using the first 0.5s as a noise profile, and remove_silence as truncating long silences, with defaults included. It also adds an important prerequisite about room tone when remove_noise is True, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'ONE-CLICK INTERVIEW CLEANUP' and specifies a light-touch processing pipeline for dialogue and multiple speakers, so the target resource and action are unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from the podcast cleanup sibling by noting it is 'lighter than podcast — preserves natural conversation dynamics.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear operational guidance: it runs in the background, returns a job_id immediately, and should be monitored via check_pipeline_status. It also explicitly warns not to call it again if a pipeline is already running. It compares to the podcast tool, but does not fully address when to choose this over other related cleanup tools such as auto_cleanup_vocal or auto_cleanup_live.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the selected audio is copied to the clipboard and implies the original is left intact, which is important for distinguishing copy from cut. It does not mention clipboard overwrite behavior, but that is reasonably implied by 'copy to clipboard.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, efficient sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the only added instruction ('Select a region first') is necessary and non-redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple zero-parameter operation with no output schema. The description states the action, the object, the destination, and the required precondition, which is sufficient 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to explain parameters that do not exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Copy') with a clear resource ('selected audio') and destination ('to clipboard'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit_cut and edit_paste by naming the copy action and its target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Select a region first.' This tells the agent when the operation can be invoked, though it does not explicitly contrast it with related edit tools such as edit_cut or edit_paste.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: the operation happens in place and does not create a new track. It stops short of detailing undo behavior or selection after-effects, but for a zero-parameter edit command this is solid coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds the key behavioral constraint efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter command with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: operation, target, split points, and track behavior. There are no missing inputs or return-value expectations to clarify.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately adds no invented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('split'), a specific target ('the clip'), and precise split locations ('cursor position or selection boundaries'). The phrase 'in place, no new track' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_split_new and edit_split_cut.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: splitting at the cursor or selection. The 'no new track' clause is an implicit exclusion that contrasts with edit_split_new, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 read-only nature of the operation and the exact return content ('the user's Music folder path'). It does not mention edge cases like missing folders, but this is a minor omission for such a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the primary purpose first, followed by return value and usage guidance. There is no redundant or speculative information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given 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 is fully adequate: it states the purpose, the return value, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 confirms that the tool takes no arguments and simply returns a path, which is the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Get the default folder for exporting audio files' and specifies the exact return value, 'the user's Music folder path.' It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_default_transcription_folder because it explicitly mentions exporting audio files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user doesn't specify where to save.' It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but for a zero-parameter getter this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well: it discloses the label-to-marker conversion, automatic naming for untitled labels, the non-existing-file constraint, and the important caveat that it is not yet live-tested against Audacity. It could add whether the source label track is modified, but the behavior is conveyed clearly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose, then provides concrete use cases and format examples, a valuable reliability caveat, and a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place and none is filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter export tool, it covers the output purpose, formats, auto-naming, and path constraints quite completely. The main gap is not specifying which label track is exported if multiple exist or what confirmation/return behavior to expect, but these are minor for this simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent, so the Args section fully compensates: path is defined as an absolute output path that must not already exist, and format is defined as one of simple, cue, or podlove with a default. This gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly despite 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export labels as a chapter/marker file' and immediately clarifies the output type and use cases. Formats such as simple, cue, and podlove further distinguish this from generic label_export or audio-segment export siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear when-to-use contexts: chapter navigation for long-form audio, track listing for a mix, and index for lecture or interview recordings. It does not explicitly name alternative label export tools or state exclusions, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that normalization can boost or reduce audio, gives a concrete dB example, and warns about potentially blowing out the audio. It could go further by stating whether the operation is destructive or undoable, but the risk warning and dB behavior are strongly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average but every section earns its place: one-line function summary, a high-signal warning, actionable target-level guidelines, and parameter details. It is well-structured with bullets and labels, and the most important risk is front-loaded immediately after the summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operation, risks, preconditions, parameter semantics, and recommended values. It is missing only minor edge-case context such as what happens if no audio is selected or whether the change can be reverted, but it is otherwise complete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for the input schema's bare type/default info. It thoroughly explains each parameter: peak_level_db with range, default, and target-selection guidance; remove_dc with its function; and stereo_independent with its purpose. This is excellent parameter documentation beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Normalize the selected audio to a target peak level.' This immediately distinguishes it from related sibling tools like effect_amplify and loudness_normalize by emphasizing peak-level normalization rather than arbitrary gain or loudness matching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit target-selection guidelines based on what processing comes next, and tells the agent to check current audio levels with project_get_info before normalizing. It includes a clear when-not case ('-1 dB only on already-mastered audio, never on raw audio'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation changes selection boundaries rather than audio, and adds practical context about why (click-free cuts). It does not mention every edge case (e.g., no selection), but the risk surface is minimal for a zero-parameter selection adjustment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the purpose second. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema selection operation, the description provides the essential purpose, the trigger condition, and the benefit. Nothing needed to decide whether to invoke it is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter detail, but this is not a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Adjust'), a precise resource ('current selection boundaries'), and the criterion ('nearest zero crossings'). It clearly distinguishes this from generic selection or editing siblings by focusing on zero-crossing alignment as a preparation for cuts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear usage context: use it before cuts to avoid audible clicks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the intended workflow is unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool is synchronous and returns analysis directly without a job_id, and lists the specific return values (peak level, noise floor, duration, clipping status, recommendation). This provides transparency about the immediate nature and output format. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the term 'analyze' implies no modification, and no side effects are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second clarifies synchronous nature, third lists return values, and final line gives prerequisite. No redundant or vague phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the return values and prerequisite. It clearly tells the agent what to expect and what to do before calling. The mention of 'auto_ pipeline' is understood from the sibling tool list, and the tool's role as a recommender is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds no ambiguity about parameters; the empty schema is fully covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes the current audio track and recommends the best auto_ pipeline to use. It specifies the action (analyze) and the resource (current audio track), and names the output (recommendation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that directly apply effects or perform other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an IMPORTANT prerequisite: load audio into Audacity before calling. It also implies usage as a decision-support tool before invoking an auto_ pipeline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as calling a pipeline directly or using other analysis tools, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses background execution, immediate job_id return, the exact pipeline stages, fixed 12dB noise reduction, and the room-tone precondition. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or what audio scope it affects, but it discloses more non-obvious behavior than most tool descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description front-loads a clear purpose, then uses a compact pipeline list and two important warnings. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler. The slight repetition between 'noisy/field recordings' and 'field recordings, and noisy environments' is minor and does not detract from the structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the async behavior, job_id, monitoring via check_pipeline_status, the processing chain, the room-tone precondition, and the concurrency constraint. The main gap is that it never says what audio the cleanup applies to (current selection, track, or whole project) or whether the result is destructive/irreversible. Otherwise, the invocation contract is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema has an empty properties object, so there is no parameter-level meaning for the description to add. The room-tone requirement is an operational precondition rather than a parameter, which is useful context but keeps the no-parameter baseline at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear one-liner: 'ONE-CLICK LIVE RECORDING CLEANUP: Aggressive processing for noisy/field recordings.' It names a specific verb, resource, and domain, and explicitly targets live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments, which distinguishes it from podcast, interview, and vocal sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool ('Designed for live performances, field recordings, and noisy environments') and provides explicit when-not guidance: 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead.' It also gives a hard prerequisite: the first 0.5 seconds must be room tone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the experimental status, separate setup requirement, background execution with immediate job_id return, and the risk of language auto-detection misidentifying short or ambiguous clips. It does not describe error behavior or what happens if no region is selected, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average but every sentence delivers critical information: setup, selection prerequisite, async behavior, monitoring path, language caveat, and parameter semantics. It is well-structured with a clear Args block and no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the prerequisites, execution model, monitoring pattern, failure mode, and all parameter values. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides parameter names, types, and defaults, while the description's Args section adds concrete allowed values for model_size ("tiny", "base", "small", "medium", "large-v3"), the meaning of language (ISO code or None), and valid task values ("transcribe" or "translate"). It also provides practical guidance like passing `language` explicitly to avoid misdetection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: "Transcribe only the currently selected audio region." The word "only" clearly scopes this tool to selection-based transcription and distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like transcribe_audio or transcribe_to_labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: select a region first, call the tool, and use check_transcription_status to monitor progress. It also explains when to pass `language` or `task="translate"`. It does not explicitly name alternative transcription tools or state when not to use them, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions the polling behavior and the expected terminal statuses, which is informative. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive (read-only) or describe potential error conditions, leaving some room for interpretation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides the usage context. There is no redundant information, and every phrase contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives sufficient context for a simple tool: it indicates when to call it (after initiating transcription) and what the outcome will look like (status 'complete' or 'error'). It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the mention of status values implies the response contains the status. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has no description for the job_id parameter, the description text clearly explains: 'The job ID returned when you started the transcription.' This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation, providing the agent with the exact source and meaning of the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the status of a running transcription job. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('transcription status'), which distinguishes it from other transcription-related tools like transcribe_audio or transcribe_to_labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs when to call this tool ('after starting transcribe_audio, transcribe_to_labels, or transcribe_to_file') and how to use it (poll every 10-15 seconds until status is 'complete' or 'error'). This provides clear usage guidance and differentiates it from other status-check tools like check_pipeline_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains each parameter's effect and includes a warning about normalize=True causing re-peaking. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the selected audio in-place or returns a new file, but this is likely implicit for an effect tool. Overall, it is transparent about parameter impacts and pitfalls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with paragraphs and a bullet-like list of arguments, but it is somewhat verbose. It repeats the argument list that appears in the schema, though since the schema lacks descriptions, this repetition is justified. The usage guidance and warning are valuable, but the text could be tightened without losing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and warnings. It explains when not to use it (mixing vs. mastering) and directs to an alternative (loudness_normalize). Given no output schema, no return value explanation is needed. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description text provides clear semantics for each parameter (e.g., 'threshold_db: Level above which compression starts (dB)'). It also explains the default values and gives examples (e.g., 'ratio: Compression ratio (e.g. 2.0 = 2:1)'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Apply dynamic range compression. Evens out volume differences.' This is specific and distinguishes it from related effects. It also provides usage scenarios (mastering vs. podcast) and warns against misuse, further clarifying its intended role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'For mastering, use ratio 1.5-2:1...' and 'For podcasts/voice, use ratio 4-8:1...'. It also explicitly contrasts with loudness_normalize: 'Use loudness_normalize() instead for proper LUFS-based loudness control.' This provides clear selection criteria among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the return behavior: it returns the user's Documents folder. It does not explicitly state that it creates no files or has no side effects, but for a parameterless getter that returns a known value, the disclosed behavior is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second gives the return value, and the third gives the invocation condition. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, fixed-return-value helper, the description is complete. It names the tool's purpose, the exact returned folder, and the condition under which to call it. No output schema exists, but the return value is fully described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. Per the rules, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds useful purpose context but no parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the default folder for saving transcription files' and explicitly tells the caller what it returns (the user's Documents folder). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_default_export_folder by scoping the result to transcription files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an explicit invocation condition: 'Call this when the user doesn't specify where to save.' This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool should be selected instead of other folder- or transcription-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: point labels are skipped, existing files are never overwritten (skipped and reported), performance warning, and an honest note about not being live-tested. These are critical behavioral traits for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a one-line purpose, then behavioral notes, then an Args section. Every sentence adds value; the front-loaded main action and essential caveats make it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file-export tool with no output schema, the description covers key behaviors and parameters. It does not describe the return value (what 'reported' means exactly), but this is minor given the detailed behavioral info. Overall sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains all three parameters: directory (absolute path), format (lists options and default), and num_channels (meaning and default). This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Export the audio under each label as its own file.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like label_export and label_export_chapters by focusing on audio segments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context (splitting a long recording into per-segment audio) and a critical prerequisite: 'ALWAYS tell the user which directory the files will be written to BEFORE calling this.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it clarifies that the output is Audacity's raw GetInfo response, implying an unparsed format. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'Get' and the contrast with the parsed label_list make the operational behavior reasonably clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is stated first and the routing guidance is a single contrastive second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, simple getter with no output schema, the description names the resource, the response form, and the preferred sibling alternative. Nothing needed to select or call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The description's only relevant semantic claim is that all labels are returned, which is consistent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all labels in the project as Audacity's raw GetInfo response.' It also distinguishes itself from label_list by noting this returns raw data, so an agent can tell the two apart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly prefers label_list for parsed labels with indices needed for label_edit and label_delete, giving a clear alternative and the reason to choose it. This tells the agent when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
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 format-by-extension behavior, the mandatory user-notification, the home-folder prohibition, and the num_channels semantics. It also implies the tool may delegate to get_default_export_folder. This is thorough and honest about side effects and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average but each section serves a purpose: the primary action, mandatory user-facing behavior, and param details. The mandatory note is front-loaded, and the argument list is clear. It is not verbose; every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened by moving the home-folder exceptions into a single bulleted list without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file-export tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the parameters, format determination, folder selection logic, and a cross-reference to a sibling helper (get_default_export_folder). The agent can invoke it correctly without missing critical information. Error handling is not required for completeness here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. 'path' is explained as an absolute path with extension-based format mapping; 'num_channels' is explained with explicit mono/stereo mapping and a default. This gives agents everything they need beyond the raw schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('project audio') with a clear output (a file). It distinguishes itself from siblings like raw_export_audio by specifying 'project' audio, implying the whole project mix rather than raw clips. This is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use instructions: always tell the user the save location, never save to the home folder, and call get_default_export_folder when no path is given. It clearly states acceptable locations and exclusions. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like raw_export_audio, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: marks itself experimental, requires setup, runs in the background returning a job_id immediately, rejects an existing file at the specified path, and warns that language auto-detection can misidentify language. This is candid about side effects, asynchronous behavior, and known failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but information-dense and front-loaded with purpose, setup, mandatory path behavior, background behavior, and a nuanced language failure mode before the parameter list. Each block carries a distinct instruction; the structure makes the hard rules (ALWAYS, NEVER, BACKGROUND) stand out.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It covers setup, path resolution, asynchronous execution, monitoring, retry behavior, file conflicts, and all parameter semantics, and references the relevant helper siblings. The main gap is that it never explicitly states which audio source is transcribed (current selection, whole project, or supplied audio), and there is no output schema or job-polling contract beyond pointing at check_transcription_status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: path is explained as an absolute output path, format gets its allowed values, model_size lists Whisper variants, language is described as ISO code or auto-detect, and task distinguishes transcribe vs translate output. This gives an agent everything needed beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action and deliverable: 'Transcribe audio and export to a subtitle or text file.' This distinguishes it from sibling transcription tools like transcribe_to_labels (labels) and implies file output rather than in-memory/transcript-only results.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit operational rules: always reveal save destination first, resolve unspecified paths via get_default_export_folder, never guess paths, monitor progress with check_transcription_status, and retry with a corrected language/task. It does not explicitly name transcribe_audio/transcribe_selection as alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls just short of full alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses background execution, immediate job_id return, the need for separate setup, and the experimental status. It does not discuss failure modes, idempotency, or disk-space effects, but the provided behavioral traits are substantive and useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the most critical usage guardrail, then setup and background behavior, then the model-size list. Every section earns its place, and the list format makes the tradeoffs scannable. It is detailed without being bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operational facts: what the tool does, when to call it, that it returns a job_id immediately, how to monitor it, what setup is needed, and what parameter values mean. For a single-optional-parameter background tool, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the allowed model_size values with size, speed, and accuracy tradeoffs, which adds real meaning beyond the input schema. It doesn't explicitly note that omitting the parameter uses 'base' (though the schema default covers that) or how invalid values are handled, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pre-download a whisper model.' It also distinguishes itself from transcribe_audio by explicitly stating that transcription tools handle model loading automatically, so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit call condition: 'ONLY call this if the user explicitly asks to download or change the model.' It also says when not to use it ('Do NOT call this before transcribe_audio') and names the alternative monitoring tool, check_transcription_status. This is direct and actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors: it replaces audio with silence, preserves timeline length, and does not move labels. However, it does not mention reversibility or undo behavior, but given its edit nature, it's reasonably transparent. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden and it covers the main effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it leads with the core action, then gives the use-case rationale, and finally the operational context (selection and tracks). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the effect on audio and labels, and clarifies the required preconditions (selected tracks and time range). No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description implicitly conveys that the tool uses the current selection and selected tracks as context, which is not a parameter but contextual information. No parameter explanations are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Replace' and the resource 'audio under every label', with the explicit scope of 'keeping the timeline length'. It also clarifies that it acts on 'labeled regions within the current selection on the SELECTED AUDIO TRACKS', which differentiates it from similar tools like delete or cut.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when the material must not get shorter' and gives concrete examples (redacting a name, muting a noise burst) that require preserving sync. It also provides preconditions: 'select the audio tracks and time range first'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it warns the tool is experimental, requires separate setup, runs in the background, returns a job_id immediately, has fallible language auto-detection, and may require clearing existing labels first. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what an input schema would convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by setup, background behavior, troubleshooting, and parameters. Every section earns its place for an experimental tool with no annotation support.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains return behavior (job_id), how to monitor progress, how to recover from language misdetection, how to clear old labels, and what each parameter accepts. Nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains each parameter: model_size with accepted Whisper sizes, language with ISO code example and null meaning auto-detect, and task with 'transcribe' vs 'translate' semantics. This adds practical meaning absent from the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Transcribe audio and add Audacity labels at each segment timestamp.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like transcribe_audio and transcribe_to_file by its label-output behavior and note about 'Runs in BACKGROUND.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit follow-up guidance ('Use check_transcription_status to monitor progress') and explains when to pass language explicitly or set task='translate'. It also advises retrying with this same tool rather than switching to a different transcription tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with transcribe_to_file or transcribe_selection for choosing between output destinations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure duty, and it delivers: it reveals the workaround implementation (selecting the label span and split-deleting), guarantees audio tracks are never selected and nothing shifts in time, and discloses collateral deletion/trimming of overlapping labels. This goes well beyond a typical mutation description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The main action is front-loaded, and each subsequent paragraph covers a necessary behavioral consequence or alternative. Despite its length, every sentence adds information the agent needs to call it safely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive label operation with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what happens, when it differs from the sibling, and how to verify results via label_list. No critical operational gap remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only gives type/title, so the description's Args line is essential. 'Flat label index from label_list' clarifies where the index comes from and what kind of index it is, adding real meaning beyond the schema; it just stops short of specifying bounds or 0-based indexing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with 'Delete a single label without touching the audio' — a specific verb, resource, and a key constraint that immediately separates it from label_delete_audio_at. The title/name alone would not convey the no-audio scope, but the description does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the agent to get the index from label_list and names the sibling label_delete_audio_at for the case where audio should also be deleted. It also warns about overlapping-label collisions and tells the agent to check label_list afterward, which is direct operational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that this is a composite orchestration of multiple Audacity commands, explains the default gap-closing behavior and close_gap=False alternative, states that all tracks are selected so label tracks ripple, and reveals that deleting audio does not remove the label and that the leftover marker is cleared by default. These are non-obvious side effects an agent needs to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but structured into focused paragraphs and a clear Args list. Every major sentence adds essential context—scope, sibling differentiation, composite nature, side effects, and parameter behavior. It could be slightly trimmed without losing value, but the length is largely justified for a complex operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a composite mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: operation semantics, index-based targeting, default and opt-out behaviors, label track alignment, leftover marker handling, and clear alternatives. No critical operational detail is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the Args section fully compensates: index is defined as 'Flat label index from label_list', close_gap explains the exact timeline effect and default True, and delete_label explains that it removes the leftover marker and default True. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the audio under ONE label, picked by index'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools label_delete (marker only) and label_delete_regions (every label in current selection, no index), so an agent can tell exactly what it does and how it differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'not label_delete (marker only) or label_delete_regions (every label in the current selection, no index)' and later 'Use label_delete instead to remove a label without touching any audio.' It also clarifies how composite label region tools differ, so the agent has clear routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that audio under labels is deleted, that gaps are closed, that labeled regions collapse rather than survive unchanged, and that the user should re-read label_list to see the result. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' and exposes the side effects and follow-up action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by use-case, alternative, prerequisites, and consequences. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what it does, when to use it, the alternative, the required setup, the behavioral impact, and a follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it adds no irrelevant parameter info. It correctly focuses on the context of use, which is the only relevant semantic here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete the audio under every label, closing the gaps') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling label_delete_audio_at ('Use label_delete_audio_at for a single label'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly separated from related label operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Label every unwanted stretch — bad takes, dead air, noise bursts — then remove them all in one pass'), names the alternative for single-label cases, and states the prerequisites ('select the audio tracks and time range first'). Also notes the behavioral consequence of the timeline closing up and advises re-reading label_list afterwards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is experimental, requires separate setup, runs in the background and returns a job_id, may fail, and can misdetect language. It also explains the expected user-facing behavior and retry strategy, far beyond what any schema or annotation supplies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and experimental caveat. The only minor issue is slight redundancy in the post-completion instructions ('TELL the user... Always tell the user...'), which could be tightened without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers setup, execution mode, monitoring, failure handling, parameter usage, language pitfalls, and what to do after the job finishes. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and respond appropriately to results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: model_size with valid values and default, language with ISO examples and None for auto-detect, and task with 'transcribe' vs 'translate' semantics including the English-output behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Transcribe the entire project audio using faster-whisper (local, offline).' It also distinguishes this from related siblings by emphasizing 'entire project' and by explicitly referencing check_transcription_status and transcription_set_model, so an agent can identify the right tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to monitor progress with check_transcription_status, poll every 10-15 seconds, and warns 'Do NOT call transcription_set_model first.' It also gives post-call instructions for informing the user about the saved transcript and retrying with corrected language/task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs in background and returns a job_id immediately, lists the exact pipeline steps (DC offset removal > HPF 80Hz > optional noise reduction > optional click removal), states what it does NOT do (compression, normalize, LUFS), and notes the critical prerequisite about the first 0.5 seconds being silence if noise reduction is enabled. It also warns about concurrent pipeline calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose and key constraint ("SAFE CLEANUP: Remove noise and artifacts WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics") appear first. The pipeline overview and parameter details are organized with headers and bullet points. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return value (job_id), how to monitor (check_pipeline_status), the processing pipeline, parameter behaviors, prerequisites (silence for the noise profile), and concurrency rules. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: remove_noise is explained as "Apply noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile" with default True, and remove_clicks as "Remove clicks/pops (useful for vinyl/old recordings)" with default False. It also adds the important caveat about the noise profile requirement, which is not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and object: "Remove noise and artifacts WITHOUT changing loudness or dynamics," and explicitly frames it as a "SAFE CLEANUP" tool. It differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing that it does not alter loudness or dynamics, making it clear it is for cleanup only when levels are already good.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: "Use this when audio levels are already good and you just want to clean it up." It also gives a clear exclusion: "DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead," and directs the user to monitor via check_pipeline_status. This provides both when and when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool runs in the background, returns a job_id, only reduces peaks if too hot (never boosts), and outlines the exact pipeline steps. It also warns about the noise profile requirement. Since there are no annotations, this description carries the full burden and handles it well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with headings and bullet-like lines, starting with a clear purpose. It includes necessary pipeline details and parameter explanations without excessive fluff, though it slightly repeats default values.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the return value (job_id), how to monitor progress, and the overall workflow including the optional LUFS normalization. It sets expectations for the pipeline and parameter behavior, making it complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two boolean parameters with no descriptions, but the description explains each parameter's meaning (remove_noise applies noise reduction using first 0.5s as noise profile, remove_silence truncates long silences) and their defaults. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as one-click podcast cleanup with professional broadcast-quality processing, and it specifies it returns a job_id and can be monitored via check_pipeline_status. This gives a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from general cleanup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to use check_pipeline_status to monitor, warns not to call again if a pipeline is already running, and suggests using loudness_normalize if needed. It also notes it is safe for badly recorded audio, providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses background execution, immediate job_id return, the complete processing pipeline, the 0.5s noise-profile requirement, and a concurrency guard. This is unusually transparent for a cleanup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but well-organized: purpose first, then execution model, pipeline, parameter detail, and guardrails. Every sentence adds operational value, and the all-caps labels highlight the highest-signal constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional boolean parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return contract (job_id), monitoring path, parameter semantics, and concurrency rules. Nothing needed to make a correct first call is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that remove_noise applies noise reduction using the first 0.5s as a noise profile, and the IMPORTANT note adds the precondition that those first 0.5 seconds should be room tone or silence when true. This is critical meaning not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'ONE-CLICK VOCAL CLEANUP: Professional processing for singing and studio vocals,' which is a specific verb and resource. 'Tuned for singing' distinguishes it from sibling cleanup tools like auto_cleanup_podcast or auto_cleanup_interview, so an agent can route correctly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly names check_pipeline_status for monitoring and warns 'DO NOT call this again if a pipeline is already running — use check_pipeline_status instead,' giving a clear when-not and alternative. 'Tuned for singing' also signals the intended use case versus other cleanup variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals async behavior, job_id returns, a six-step processing pipeline, noise reduction being off by default, no post-normalize, and loudness handling that only reduces peaks and never boosts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose and async behavior are front-loaded, followed by a tight numbered pipeline, an Args block, and a final guardrail warning. Every sentence adds operational value with little to no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-optional-parameter async tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call contract: what happens, the processing order, parameter semantics, return behavior, and how to monitor or avoid duplicate calls. It is more than sufficient 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.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: style is documented with six concrete preset values and its default, and noise_reduce is explained as gentle noise reduction with default False. This adds real meaning the schema alone does not provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action—professionally master a music track—with genre-tuned settings, and the detailed pipeline makes it distinct from sibling cleanup, audiobook, and lofi tools. It goes well beyond restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent to monitor with check_pipeline_status and warns not to call again while a pipeline is already running, naming the exact alternative. It also clarifies that this is a background, async operation rather than a synchronous one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly warns that the tool can DESTROY audio, boosts or reduces to hit the target LUFS, can apply 20-30 dB of gain causing clipping and distortion, and requires safe peak ranges before use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but appropriately structured and front-loaded: danger warning first, then prohibited use cases, then the only acceptable use, then targets and args. Every section provides operational value, and the critical warnings appear before any parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive audio mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risk profile, prerequisites, alternatives, valid target values, and parameter behavior. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and how to invoke it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section gives each parameter meaningful semantics: lufs_level with a valid range and default, stereo_independent explaining L/R channel treatment, and dual_mono explaining correct LUFS measurement. This fully compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation: normalize audio to a target perceived loudness in LUFS. It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling normalize tool by calling normalize the gentle alternative for quiet audio, and it restricts use to explicit LUFS normalization requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: not after a pipeline, not on raw audio, not without auto_analyze_audio, and not when peaks are below -20 dB. It also names the only acceptable condition and points to normalize as the alternative for quiet audio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/FFriends/MCP-Audacity'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server