Analyze song

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 does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — 'Runs locally with ffmpeg' — implying no upload/auth and a local dependency, but it omits whether any files are modified, how long analysis takes, limits on file size/length, and failure behavior for unsupported media.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the verb and outputs, with no filler or repetition. The long parenthetical about TikTok/Reels/Shorts is slightly over-stuffed but contributes real intent information, so only minor trimming is warranted.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (BPM, key, Camelot, bar length, duration, energetic windows), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. What remains missing is behavior for edge cases — unsupported formats, very long videos, or analysis runtimes — and it has no annotation support to lean on.

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 schema already documents path, maxTempo and minTempo with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it never mentions the tempo range knobs), so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a precise verb (detect/analyze) and resource (local audio or video file) and enumerates the concrete outputs: BPM, key, Camelot code, bar length, duration, and energetic windows. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling creation tools (plan_music_video, create_ai_music_video), but it never names or contrasts with them, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'good clips for TikTok, Reels and Shorts' hints that this analysis feeds downstream clip/video creation, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives or any prerequisite guidance. An agent can infer the context but must guess at exclusions.

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