raw_paulstretch

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

The description transparently discloses potential side effects: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' It also suggests inspecting the command name for further details. This is good disclosure given there are no annotations, though it could be more specific about the exact behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It conveys the essential information without redundancy or irrelevant details, making it 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?

While the description gives the core action and side effects, it lacks context about what audio is affected (e.g., selection) or any prerequisites. It does not mention the return value, but that may be irrelevant given the potential for dialogs. However, more completeness about the effect's scope would improve the description.

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 tool has no parameters in the schema, and the description explicitly states 'no-argument,' leaving no ambiguity about argument handling. Since the schema is empty, no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 action: 'Apply an extreme time-stretch effect.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also mentions 'Paulstretch' which distinguishes it from other effects.

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 provides some usage guidance by warning about potential dialogs or state changes and advising to 'inspect the command name first.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'effect_paulstretch' or other time-stretch tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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