Create tempo sync

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that with emit_events on, a 'beat' event is broadcast over WebSocket, and expose_controls exposes a live knob. Since annotations are readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description clarifies the creation nature and non-destructive behavior. No contradictions.

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 main purpose and then detailing the channels and event behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description explains the tool's output channels, optional event emission, and usage context. It does not explicitly describe the network nodes created or return format, but the listed channels and events make it sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds meaning by explaining the ramp/pulse/beat/bar channels and event broadcasting, but does not cover the parent_path parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work, but the missing parameter is not addressed.

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 identifies the tool as creating a tempo clock exposing specific beat-synced channels (ramp, pulse, beat, bar, bpm) on a Null CHOP. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning pairing with extract_audio_features and by listing unique output channels.

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 when to use the tool ('bind any parameter to these to lock visuals to the beat') and when to enable emit_events ('so tdmcp-agent watch and the AI can see the pulse live'). It suggests pairing with extract_audio_features. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the context is clear and provides practical usage guidance.

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