assist_finishing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only analysis but does not confirm whether it modifies anything, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description lacks depth about side effects and 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 single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by explaining the parameter and output.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an unspecified output schema, the description should explain what the output looks like and clarify the meaning of 'set' (likely an Ableton Live project). It falls short by omitting expected return format and input context.

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 input schema has one required parameter `path` with no description, and the description does not explain what `path` refers to (e.g., path to a project file). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain about the required input.

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 aggregates finishing suggestions for a set and lists specific issue types (missing instruments, empty clips, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like `als_find_unfinished` by focusing on common finishing problems rather than broader unfinished detection. However, the verb 'aggregate' is somewhat generic.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does without guiding the agent on when to prefer it over similar tools like `als_find_unfinished`.

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