Previsualizar preparación de canción

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds further specificity by stating it does not even open REAPER and that it validates media, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 existing annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core purpose and side-effect guarantees. It does not delve into parameters or return format, but the output schema is present, and the description provides enough context for a preview tool. Slight gap remains in that it doesn't explain what 'plan de sesión' entails or how parameters influence it.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for six parameters, and the description does not describe any parameter semantics. It only mentions validating media and returning a plan, without explaining song_name, bpm, numerator, denominator, source_kind, or analysis_level. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Valida') and resource ('medios'), and specifies the output ('plan de sesión'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'sin escribir ni abrir REAPER', which differentiates it from prepare_song and other side-effect-incurring 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 phrase 'sin escribir ni abrir REAPER' strongly implies a preview/validation use case without side effects, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so no exclusions are provided.

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