multi-synth-execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., audio playback, server-side processing), error handling, side effects, or performance characteristics. 'Executes' is vague without context about the execution environment or outcomes.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with good schema coverage.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs execution. It doesn't explain what SynthDefs are, what execution entails (e.g., audio synthesis, server commands), return values, or error conditions. For a tool with potential audio/processing implications, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (synths array with name/code objects, duration with default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying multiple SynthDefs via '複数の', which aligns with the synths array parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('複数のSynthDefを同時に実行します' translates to 'executes multiple SynthDefs simultaneously') and identifies the resource (SynthDefs). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'synth-execute' by specifying multiple rather than single execution. However, it doesn't specify what SynthDefs are (audio synthesis definitions in SuperCollider) or what 'executes' entails concretely.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'synth-execute' or explain scenarios where batch execution is preferable to single execution. There's no information about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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