suggest_cadence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool suggests cadence types, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about potential impacts.

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 initial sentence followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the format could be slightly more streamlined. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Cadence suggestions with explanations'), the description sufficiently covers inputs, outputs, and context. It could expand on edge cases or failure modes, but for a suggestion tool it is nearly complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by listing all three parameters with examples (e.g., 'current_chord: Current chord (e.g., "V", "IV", "I")'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema structure, though it does not cover possible values exhaustively.

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's purpose: 'Suggest appropriate cadence types based on context.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_chord or suggest_next_chord, which deal with chords rather than cadence types.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The context signals and sibling list suggest many related tools, but the description offers no differentiation.

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