extract_beats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it never says whether this is a synchronous analysis or an async job (notable given get_render_status exists for a sibling), how expensive it is, or what it returns. Only the general purpose is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than maximal usefulness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the load but doesn't: an agent cannot tell whether beats come back as timestamps or a file, whether the call is blocking, or whether the result feeds render_video directly. For a 3-parameter analysis tool this is thin.

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 100% with all three parameters documented inline, including the mode enum and minGap units, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain how 'impact' vs 'downbeat' affects results or how minGap interacts with mode.

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 (extract), resource (beats), and source (music file), plus the downstream purpose (syncing video cuts). No sibling tool performs beat analysis, so the operation is trivially distinguishable, though the description never explicitly names what it is not.

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 phrase 'for syncing video cuts' implies the workflow context (pairing with render_video), which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no guidance on which detection mode to pick or when to skip this tool.

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