detect_beats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses non-destructive nature ('pure analysis'), exact return format, the lower-octave pinning behavior, and the edge case for silence/undetectable pulse. This is thorough and goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 structured in three short paragraphs: purpose/return, octave nuance, and usage/edge case. It is front-loaded with the core function and every sentence contributes value, though the 'no output' phrase could be more precise.

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?

Covers input path, parameter behavior, output schema (in prose), edge cases, and intended use case. For a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, this description is exceptionally complete. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of 'no output' versus the JSON return.

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 description explicitly references min_bpm and max_bpm and explains their semantic role (octave pinning), adding context beyond the schema's type/default definitions. Audio_path is implied, so two of three parameters gain meaningful explanation despite 0% schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect tempo and beat times of an audio track'. It also positions itself as 'pure analysis', distinguishing it from sibling generation/editing tools. This is 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.

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

Provides a clear use case: 'Use this to beat-snap multi-clip seams onto a music bed before stitching.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling tools are largely generation/editing, this guidance is sufficient for a specialized analysis tool.

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