Align Japanese Morae to Vocal Rhythm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by detailing specific behaviors (melisma and small-っ handling) but does not expand on overall behavior like output format or side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction detected.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose with no redundant words. Every part serves a clear function.

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 (10 parameters including nested objects, 5 enums, and an output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need for reading with kanji), integration with sibling tools like vocaloid_phrase_grammar, or the nature of the returned phrase. The existence of output schema does not excuse missing contextual guidance for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 60%, meaning 4 params lack descriptions in the schema (start, note_slots, and two others). The description does not compensate; it provides no parameter-level explanations. For uncovered params like 'start' and 'note_slots', the description offers zero guidance, falling short of the baseline expectation for moderate coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Align'), resource ('Japanese morae to stable rhythm slots'), and outcome ('manifest-compatible phrase'). It also calls out explicit melisma and small-っ timing decisions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vocaloid_phrase_grammar.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The mention of 'manifest-compatible' is a subtle hint but insufficient for a clear usage recommendation.

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