Suggest Beat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Suggest' implies a non-mutating advisory call, but the description never states whether this writes anything, whether it requires an existing curve/project, or what it returns. For a tool with a required curve_id and depth, that context is missing.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. Slightly terse to the point of ambiguity, but structurally efficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, no annotation coverage, no output schema, and a sibling that does nearly the same thing, the definition should do much more work. As written, an agent cannot confidently choose it over suggest_next_beat or know what inputs it needs.

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 three parameters are undocumented. The description mentions depth (指定深度), adding meaning for one parameter, but curve_id (required) and project_id are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb (建议/suggest) and resource (释放/冲突/揭示类节拍 — release/conflict/revelation-type beats) plus scope (指定深度/at a given depth). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling suggest_next_beat, which an agent could easily pick instead.

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 on when to use this versus suggest_next_beat, register_beat, or create_beat_sheet. The only contextual hint is the 'depth' scoping, which is a parameter description, not usage guidance.

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