ass_karaoke_auto_timings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that apply=False is a pure read that only proposes text, that apply=True writes \k tags, and that the write happens after workspace.snapshot. This is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond what any structured field provides; only auth/rate-limit style context is absent, which is reasonable for a local editor tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Arguments/Returns headings make it scannable. The Returns block is lengthy, but since no output schema exists it is earning its place rather than padding; a minor trim of the field list would make it tighter.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers nearly all arguments and, helpfully, documents the return dict so an agent can interpret results like discrepancy_cs and matches_line_duration. It is nearly complete; the only gaps are doc_id semantics and deeper explanation of the non-syllable modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: index, mode (with its four values and the marker dependency for 'syllable'), weights, start_ms/end_ms, apply, kind, and pattern are all given meaning and defaults. Only doc_id is left unexplained, and 'char'/'word'/'regex' modes get no elaboration on split behavior, but overall this is strong parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Propose karaoke timings') with a clear scope constraint ('for one line from its duration') and notes the default read-only behavior. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the nearest siblings (ass_karaoke_generate, ass_karaoke_retime), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied through the argument explanations (e.g. mode selects the splitting strategy, apply toggles write), and the 'no write by default' framing hints at the propose-vs-commit use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over the many other karaoke tools (generate, retime, scale, set_timings), so no explicit when-to-use guidance is present.

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