detect_parallel_motion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks behavioral details such as how pitches are interpreted (e.g., pitch notation), handling of mismatched array lengths, or definition of parallel motion. Only basic purpose is stated.

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 very concise with two sentences plus a docstring-style return statement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but omits necessary details for accurate use. Still, it achieves brevity without excessive verbosity.

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 tool deals with a complex music theory concept (parallel motion) and has an output schema, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'detection results with parallel motion instances'. Without annotations or more specific return info (e.g., locations, voice details), the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently use.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds some meaning by stating voice parameters are 'list of pitches'. However, it does not specify expected pitch format (e.g., 'C4' vs 'MIDI number'), leaving ambiguity. Given the schema provides no descriptions, this is minimal but not insufficient.

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 states it detects parallel fifths and octaves between two voices, which is specific and directly indicates the tool's purpose. Among siblings like analyze_chord or check_voice_leading, this tool is unique in focusing on parallel motion.

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 detecting parallel fifths/octaves but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like check_voice_leading or find_dissonances. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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