detect_beats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses marker creation and replacement, cache location, default clip-selection behavior, and a meaningful accuracy caveat about half/double tempo on sparse music. It does not fully describe the returned data format, but the side effects and limitations are unusually well covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded with 'Find the beat of the music,' and the description is compact for the amount of behavioral detail provided. Some marker-related clauses are dense, but there is little wasted text.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, defaults, marker side effects, caching, and a key accuracy caveat. It could more explicitly describe the return value or relationship to cutting-to-beats workflows, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 already documents all six parameters, including force, musicTrack, sequenceId, and sequenceName. The description adds useful context for file-vs-timeline behavior and marker choices, but it does not materially explain the remaining parameters beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: find tempo, beats, and downbeats in music, either from a file or the timeline. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as cut_to_beats.

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?

It explains that the tool can analyze a provided file or read audio-only clips already on the timeline, excluding voiceover-like clips. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative-tool routing, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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