arrangement_plan

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

The description explicitly states the tool 'returns sections with bar counts, roles, and an energy 0..1', indicating a non-destructive, informational output. There are no annotations to supplement, so this disclosure is helpful, though it does not explicitly say whether the project is modified.

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 two sentences long, well-structured with semicolon-separated parameter explanations and a clear output summary. No redundant or ambiguous wording.

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 description provides enough context to know what input is needed and what output is expected. It does not mention output schema or relationship to composition tools, but for a self-contained planning utility it is sufficiently 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 description adds meaning to four of six parameters (genre, target_length_seconds, tempo, energy_curve) by explaining their roles in the output. The two remaining booleans (include_bridge, include_buildup) are not mentioned, but their names and defaults make their semantics self-evident.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Produce a section list for a song.' It further explains how three key parameters (genre, target_length_seconds, tempo, energy_curve) influence the output, making the tool's distinct purpose unambiguous among many composition and theory siblings.

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 gives a clear functional usage by explaining how each main parameter affects the result (genre selects form, tempo+length set bars, energy_curve shapes intensity). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario of generating an arrangement plan is strongly implied.

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