check_spacing

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning 'Spacing analysis with recommendations', implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state side effects or behavioral constraints. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 with a clear Args and Returns structure. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains inputs and output nature, though it omits prerequisites or edge cases.

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 0%, and the description adds meaning by listing parameters (note_count, bar_width_mm, shortest_note) with brief explanations in the Args section. However, it lacks details like valid note values or units, leaving room for 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 clearly states 'Check if note spacing is appropriate for readability', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_beaming or check_enharmonic by focusing on spacing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without exclusions or context for use cases.

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