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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details output fields, grid resolutions, syncopation scale, and includes an example. It does not explicitly say whether the tool modifies notes, but the analysis-focused description strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 well-organized with a summary, bullet features, grid options, use cases, parameters, and an example. Though long, it is structured and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing value.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior, including outputs, grid resolutions, parameter semantics, and an example. Given the output schema handles return values, this description is contextually complete for an analysis tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index, track_index, region_index with default behavior, and grid with all possible values. It elaborates on grid resolution options, providing meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 it extracts rhythmic patterns from notes and lists specific outputs such as onset grid, syncopation, and IOI. The verb 'Extract' and resource 'rhythmic pattern from notes' are precise, distinguishing it from analysis and generation tools.

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 'Useful for' section lists explicit scenarios like measuring syncopation, extracting groove for groove_transfer, and feeding rhythm to generate_melody. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives for exclusion.

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