generate_counterpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it generates counterpoint but does not specify if it modifies the score, creates a new one, or returns data. No mention of side effects, authorization needs, or result format.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the species mapping.

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 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on preconditions, output, and overall behavior, leaving the agent uncertain about invocation and results.

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 description adds meaning to the 'species' parameter with a mapping of integer values to counterpoint styles, which is helpful. However, it provides no information about 'score_id' (the required parameter) or 'voice_position' (e.g., what values are valid, such as 'above' and 'below'?). Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 specifies the action ('generate') and the resource ('species counterpoint'), and provides a mapping of species numbers to styles. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like harmonize_melody or voice_leading_analysis, which could be clarified.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies generation of counterpoint but lacks context on required input (e.g., a cantus firmus) or when not to use it.

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