analyze_chord

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which matches the parse-only behavior described. The description adds value by listing specific return components (root, quality, intervals, extensions, harmonic function) and conditional fields with key, beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the primary function. Every sentence adds value, 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.

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

No output schema exists, so the description bears full burden. It clearly explains return values for both with and without key scenarios, covering the main outputs. It could mention error handling or invalid input, but what's provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that providing a key returns Roman numeral, scale degree, and diatonic status, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the key parameter's effect on output, earning a 4.

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 it parses a chord symbol into root, quality, intervals, extensions, and harmonic function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_voicing' (creates voicings) and 'reharmonize' (changes harmony), so purpose is clear and specific.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is insufficient.

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