analyze_chord

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the return structure ('root, quality, and Roman numeral') but does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs, error handling, or performance implications.

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 concise (6 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections, containing no extraneous 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?

The description explains parameters and return values adequately, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks information on error conditions or when not to use the tool, slightly reducing completeness for a 2-parameter analytical tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations and examples for both parameters: 'pitches' (list of pitch names with example) and 'key' (with example 'C major'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Analyze' and resource 'chord' with the specific outcome 'Roman numeral analysis'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `analyze_intervals` which analyzes intervals, not chords.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `analyze_intervals` or `generate_chord_progression`. The context implies harmonic analysis but lacks clear directives or exclusions.

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