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

With no annotations, the description transparently covers key behaviors: runs three checks per stem, phase analysis for stereo files only, returns a triage report with severity levels. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only diagnostic, this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with a clear summary first, then steps, output format, parameter details, and an example. It is slightly verbose but 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 complex batch diagnostic tool, the description covers the main functionality, parameters, output triage levels, and stereo-only constraint. It could mention file availability or size limits, but overall it is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description adds critical meaning: filenames accepts JSON array or comma-separated WAV list, genre is optional with examples (pop, rock, lo-fi). An example usage clarifies expected input format.

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 explicitly states the tool runs a full diagnostic on multiple stems including problem detection, phase analysis, and profile comparison. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_problems and analyze_phase by batching these operations together.

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 explains the tool is a batch equivalent of Phantom's diagnostic, but does not explicitly state when to use this over individual analysis tools. However, the detailed output structure and prioritized triage report implicitly guide usage for comprehensive batch diagnostics.

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