Analyze Pacing & Tension Curve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what metrics are returned (ratios, tension curve, scene beats) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, side effects, or return format. For an analysis tool, the described outputs give reasonable transparency, but safety and response structure are unstated.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key metrics. No fluff or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the outputs (ratio, tension curve, scene beats), making the tool's results predictable. For a lightweight analysis tool with two simple parameters, this is adequate context, though a note on return structure or usage examples would push it higher.

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 100%, with both 'arc' and 'chapter' parameter descriptions provided. The main description adds context about what the analysis measures but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles details.

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 measures action/dialogue/description ratios, tension curve, and scene beats, specifying the verb 'measure' and the resource (pacing). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like story_analyze_voice, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction.

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 implies usage for pacing analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter description hints at analyzing an entire arc vs. a specific chapter, providing some context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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