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. While it mentions code generation and sound execution, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, error handling, or what happens after execution. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the absence of 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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a formatting requirement. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage instructions from core functionality.

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 tool's complexity (code generation and execution with sound output), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after execution, what the return values might be, error conditions, or how the generated sound interacts with the system. For a tool that presumably produces audio output, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention any parameters, but the schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'synth' (object with name and code) and 'duration' (playback time in milliseconds). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'SynthDefのコードを生成し、そのコードを実行して音を出します' (Generate SynthDef code and execute that code to produce sound). This specifies both the verb (generate and execute) and resource (SynthDef code/sound), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'multi-synth-execute' tool.

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 minimal usage guidance with the instruction 'コードは{}でくくるようにしてください' (wrap the code with {}), but offers no context about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'multi-synth-execute' or any other alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for application.

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