analyze_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, how it handles multiple input sources (path, content, session), or any side effects. The vague 'so a model can perceive what is written' does not provide concrete behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and purpose. 'Describe a piece as sixteen numbers per bar' is direct and useful. The trailing clause 'so a model can perceive what is written' adds some context, though 'and the rest' is imprecise. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain the return structure, how to choose among path/content/session, or what all sixteen numbers represent. The schema covers parameter names but lacks usage context. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning by listing some feature types (density, register, tension), but it does not clarify the parameters themselves (bars, path, table, voice, content, session). Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description offers little extra value beyond a general context.

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's function: 'Describe a piece as sixteen numbers per bar' for feature analysis. It specifies the resource (a musical piece) and output format (sixteen numbers per bar), which distinguishes it from siblings like compile_score or write_score. However, the phrase 'and the rest' is vague and could be more precise.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context with sibling tools such as ensemble_report or notation_reference. The intended usage is only implied through the action of describing a piece numerically.

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