generate_tone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value with parameter domains and the 'Square (no alias)' variant, but it omits the most consequential behaviors: whether the tone creates a new track, overwrites the selected audio, inserts at the cursor, or requires an active track. These are critical for correct invocation and are entirely undisclosed.

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?

A one-sentence lead followed by four terse argument lines, each carrying distinct information (units, ranges, allowed values, defaults). It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Minor deduction for the mechanical 'Args:' docstring format, which is structured but not ideal for AI consumption.

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 zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, this description is the sole source of information, yet it covers only parameters and never explains the operation's effect on the project. Whether the call is destructive, whether it needs a selection, and where the tone lands are all missing. A generative audio tool needs that context to be safe to invoke.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies units (Hz, seconds), valid ranges (1-20000, 0-1), the four permitted waveform values, and defaults for all four parameters. This fully covers what the schema lacks. It stops short of a 5 only because it adds no nuance about validation or out-of-range behavior.

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?

'Generate a tone signal' states a specific verb and resource, and the Args list (Sine, Square, Sawtooth) makes the resource concrete. It is reasonably distinguishable from generate_noise, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from generate_chirp, which also produces a tone-like signal.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Closely related siblings exist (generate_noise, generate_chirp, generate_dtmf, generate_rhythm_track), and the description neither mentions them nor gives selection criteria. An agent must guess which generator to invoke.

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