analyze_beat_finder

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the main side effect—adding labels to the project—and the threshold sensitivity. However, it does not mention what happens to existing labels, whether the operation is undoable, or any other side effects beyond adding labels.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter documentation is minimal and directly useful, with no redundant filler or repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it does, what it affects, and what the threshold means. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not address whether existing labels are overwritten or what the tool returns, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter: its valid range (0-100), its direction of effect ('lower = more sensitive'), and its default value (65). This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer schema definition.

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 states a specific action ('Find beats'), a clear resource ('selected audio'), and the outcome ('add labels at beat positions'). This distinguishes it from label-only tools and other analysis tools such as analyze_find_clipping or analyze_plot_spectrum.

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 when to use the tool: when the user wants beat positions marked as labels on selected audio. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as raw_beatsand_measures, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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