tap_tempo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a tempo change via tapping, but does not explain how tapping works (e.g., multiple taps, averaging, whether it affects playback). This is a thin disclosure for an action that mutates the song state.

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 sentence and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy ('Tap tempo' and 'by tapping'). It is concise in length but wastes words, making it less efficient than it could be.

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 having no parameters and an output schema (which covers return values), the description lacks essential context about the tap-tempo behavior. It does not explain whether multiple taps are required, how the BPM is calculated, or how this differs from a direct set_tempo call. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to document. The schema already fully covers parameters with an empty object.

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 states the tool sets BPM via tapping, but it is somewhat tautological ('Tap tempo' and 'by tapping') and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like set_tempo, which also sets BPM. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity about the interactive tapping behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_tempo. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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