Detect beats / onsets in audio

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool uses ffmpeg and supports any audio format. It also confirms the read-only nature, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. There is no contradiction with 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first describes the action and output, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its inputs, outputs, and usage context. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and how to use the results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds only minimal extra meaning: it explains the sensitivity range ('0=only strong hits, 1=many onsets (default 0.5)'), which is helpful but not critical beyond the schema's description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes audio files and returns beat times, strength, and BPM. It uses specific language ('Analyze', 'return') and distinguishes from sibling tools that create or modify, emphasizing its read-only nature and independence from Premiere.

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 explicitly states how the output should be used ('cut clips, place keyframes or markers on the beat / bass drops'), providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though sibling tools like premiere_add_beat_markers could be seen as complementary rather than alternatives.

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