detect_beats

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully informs about the tool's behavior: it processes a media file, writes a JSON side-effect file, requires an optional dependency with a fallback message, and integrates with other tools.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds unique value (function, output, dependencies, integration). No 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 single required parameter and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it explains the output format, integration with sibling tools, and dependency handling.

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 sole parameter (media_path) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: detecting beats and tempo in audio/video files, and specifies that it writes a beats JSON file for use with import_beat_markers and snap_to_beats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for beat-synced editing), mentions a dependency (librosa) and graceful degradation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative approaches.

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