media_detect_beats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the output (beat timestamps). It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as supported file formats, audio requirements, processing time, or whether the operation is non-destructive.

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 short and to the point, with two sentences and an argument list. Every sentence contributes value, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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's simplicity, the description covers the primary purpose and parameter. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral context makes it incomplete for agents needing to understand prerequisites or side effects. The presence of an output schema compensates for return value explanation.

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%, and the description adds only a basic clarification for the 'path' parameter (Path to audio/video file). It does not provide format constraints, examples, or additional context that the schema lacks.

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 it detects beat positions in audio/music files and returns timestamps for music-synced editing. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like media_detect_silence and media_scene_detect.

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 for music-synced editing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it is given.

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