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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the internal behavior: it compares spectral content of exported stems pairwise, computes specific outputs (overlap_score, conflict_bands, severity, recommendation), and returns a prioritized list. It also notes the prerequisite that the stems must already be exported, adding useful operational context.

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 bit long but well-structured: a clear purpose statement, contextual examples, a detailed parameter explanation, and a usage example. Every section earns its place, with no redundant filler aside from the mildly rhetorical 'The #1 mix problem' line.

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 the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the required parameter format, the prerequisite (export stems), the outputs, and an end-to-end example. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema only specifies filenames as a string with no description, but the description thoroughly explains the accepted formats (JSON array or comma-separated list), provides concrete examples, and clarifies that the files must be in the exports dir. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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: 'Detect frequency masking between stems — where instruments compete for the same frequency range.' It is specific about the resource ('stems') and distinguishes this pairwise analysis tool from siblings like analyze_spectrum or detect_problems by focusing on inter-stem conflicts.

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 provides clear context for when to use it ('The #1 mix problem') and gives an example workflow (export stems first, then call this). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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