crompton_stereo_image

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output structure but not behavioral traits like required auth, rate limits, or whether the tool is safe (e.g., read-only). However, the description is detailed enough about what it produces.

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?

Two sentences efficiently describe the tool's purpose and output structure, front-loaded with main functionality. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description covers key output metrics and per-band breakdown. However, it omits details like data types, units, or interpretation of summary block items (e.g., mono-section count). Still sufficiently complete for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 coverage is 100% (single parameter well-documented). Description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, meeting baseline.

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 computes a stereo-image timeline with specific metrics (balance, width correlation, side/mid ratio) and per-band breakdown, distinguishing it from siblings like crompton_album_stereo_image which operates on album level.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., album_stereo_image). The context implies it's for single-track analysis, but no exclusion of other tools or context is provided.

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