analyze_stereo_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return values and correlation interpretation, but does not disclose whether rendering is destructive or time-consuming, or if any state changes occur. The phrase 'Render the project' could be ambiguous regarding performance impact.

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 brief with three sentences: purpose, list of outputs, and explanation of correlation values. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 parameterless analysis tool, the description covers purpose, outputs, and interpretation of results. It lacks details on prerequisites, render time, or whether it modifies the project, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 renders the project to analyze stereo width and mono compatibility, specifying the verb 'analyze' and resource 'stereo field'. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like analyze_dynamics and analyze_frequency_spectrum by focusing on stereo spatial properties.

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 implies use when stereo width or phase issues are relevant, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_frequency_spectrum or analyze_loudness. No examples or exclusions are provided.

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