find_bass_patches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking and seeding but does not disclose whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it modifies the session, how many results are returned, or what 'seeds' means operationally. The behavior of ranking and seeding is only partially transparent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Rank the Vital preset bank') and includes the key context (target profile dimensions and downstream tool). Every word earns its place; no filler or 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?

The tool has an output schema and only one optional parameter, so the surface area is small. However, the description omits critical context: what the output looks like, how 'n' behaves, whether the ranking requires a prior target setup, and what 'seeds for design_bass' means in practice. For a tool that feeds another tool, more guidance is needed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain the 'n' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it likely controls the number of ranked results. The default of 5 is in the schema, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 states a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('Vital preset bank') against a defined target profile, and names the downstream tool it seeds ('design_bass'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_kicks or find_references beyond the bass-specific context.

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 usage context: it is used to rank bass patches against a target bass profile and seeds design_bass. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a target profile set or a preset bank loaded.

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