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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the analysis outputs and implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, which is appropriate for a signal analysis tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Run signal analysis'), and efficiently enumerates outputs without extraneous content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return values, providing enough context for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (capture_id), which already has a description. The tool description adds that the parameter should come from capture_audio, but this is marginal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the verb ('Run signal analysis'), resource ('captured audio clip'), and lists specific metrics returned (RMS, peak dB, clipping, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_audio or describe_audio.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool requires a prior captured audio clip (via capture_id), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like describe_audio or diff_audio, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'short clip' and mentions the duration parameter, but does not disclose what audio source is captured (e.g., system output, microphone), potential failure modes, or any destructive effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, return value, and relationship to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (duration_ms fully documented). The main description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states (default 3000, max 30000). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool records a short clip of the running web app's audio output and returns a capture ID. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools (analyze_audio, describe_audio, diff_audio) by specifying that the ID can be passed to them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use the capture ID with analyze_audio or describe_audio, implying a workflow. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond the mentioned siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the AI models but omits side effects like cost, latency, or external dependencies. This is insufficient for a tool that sends audio to external APIs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose, usage context, and outcome without any wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential information. Minor gaps exist regarding output format or latency, but overall it is complete enough for the complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the purpose, but no further semantic information is needed given the schema's completeness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('send'), resource ('captured audio clip'), and outcome ('plain-English description'). It differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_audio, capture_audio, and diff_audio by focusing on description generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a usage context ('useful when something sounds wrong but you cannot describe it') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like analyze_audio.

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

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 states the tool 'flags what changed,' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose whether it is safe, destructive, or requires permissions. Given the simple nature of a diff tool, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and what is flagged, the second gives a concise use case. No unnecessary words. Well-structured and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the purpose and usage but lacks information about return values or potential errors. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, a hint at the output format would improve completeness. Sibling tools are explained in their own descriptions, so differentiation is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described as the 'before' and 'after' capture ID. The tool description adds context about comparing captures and the aspects examined, but does not significantly enhance the semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares two audio captures and lists specific aspects (loudness, tone, timing, clipping). It distinguishes itself from siblings (capture_audio, analyze_audio, describe_audio) by focusing on comparative analysis and providing a concrete use case ('before and after a code change').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'before and after a code change to verify the audio impact.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the use case implies a comparison scenario.

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