Troubleshoot a guitar tone

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly and destructive annotations: the tool returns prioritized recommendations, does not apply changes, and actively checks for accidental double-cab routing. This clarifies the agent's expectations about output ordering and an embedded diagnostic. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the call to action, the output nature, the problem scope, and the additional routing check.

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 simple two-parameter schema and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main task and the notable diagnostic behavior. It does not need to restate return values because an output schema is available. The main remaining gap is richer guidance on composing currentRig, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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?

Schema documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. The listed tone problems give concrete meaning to the 'problem' parameter, and the double-cab routing check implies that currentRig should include signal chain/cab details. However, the description does not specify how detailed currentRig must be or the expected phrasing for the problem, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource: prioritized, exact changes for guitar tone problems. It lists distinct issue categories (fizzy, muddy, thin, harsh, boomy, over-compressed, slow/soft attack) and a diagnostic check for double-cab routing, which differentiates it from the sibling search/recommend tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it is not, so it falls just short of perfect differentiation.

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 phrase 'for fizzy, muddy, thin, harsh, boomy, over-compressed, or slow/soft attack problems' provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. The required currentRig and problem inputs further imply the intended use: diagnose an existing rig rather than search or recommend gear. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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