check_species_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes intervals and rule violations, but does not mention side effects, performance, or limitations. This is adequate for an analysis tool but could be more 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 well-structured with 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Examples' sections. It is concise but provides all necessary information without repetition or unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity and that an output schema exists (per context), the description explains return values as 'Analysis with intervals and rule violations'. Combined with the examples, it provides complete context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: cantus_firmus and counterpoint are lists of pitches with examples, and species is an integer 1-5 with a description of each species. 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 it checks species counterpoint rules by analyzing a counterpoint line against a cantus firmus. It distinguishes from siblings like check_voice_leading or find_dissonances by being specific to species counterpoint with a species number parameter.

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 species counterpoint analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_voice_leading or detect_parallel_motion. No when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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