check_voice_leading

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description focuses only on functionality without addressing safety or operational context.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections provide structure, but the information is not overly detailed. It efficiently communicates the tool's use 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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the input and output basics. However, it lacks details about the algorithm or the exact format of returned issues, which could be important for evaluation. Overall, it is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 value by explaining the 'voice1' and 'voice2' parameters as pitch lists with examples. However, it does not clarify the required pitch format (e.g., scientific notation) or constraints like equal length, leaving some 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 the tool checks for voice leading issues between two voice parts, listing specific issues like parallel fifths and octaves. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate_score' or 'validate_voice_leading' by focusing narrowly on voice leading detection, though the inclusion of 'etc.' slightly reduces specificity.

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 over siblings such as 'detect_parallel_motion' or 'validate_voice_leading'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferable, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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