Create Chroma Reactive (experimental)

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

The description discloses that it may prompt for macOS microphone permission if audioSource is omitted, which is important behavioral info. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the description. However, it does not elaborate on other potential side effects or error states.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and mechanism. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage guidance from output description).

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 (chroma extraction, FFT), the description covers the basic concept and output type. However, it lacks details on the return value format (besides being a Null CHOP) and potential limitations, and it does not reference any output schema. The experimental tag is noted but not elaborated.

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 adds context on the algorithm (FFT bin to pitch-class fold) but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With schema coverage at 60%, the description partially compensates but not fully for the undocumented parameters.

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 it builds a 12-channel pitch-class chroma vector from audio via FFT bin to pitch-class fold. It specifies the resource (chroma reactive) and verb (builds), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning shared audioSource convention with create_transient_reactive and create_energy_reactive.

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 notes that the output is a Null CHOP ready for bind_to_channel and shares audioSource convention with similar tools. This gives context on usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_transient_reactive or create_energy_reactive, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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