theory_cadences

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

There are no annotations, and the description doesn't disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It does not clarify what happens if an invalid name is provided or whether it performs any mutations.

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 brief and to the point, with no extraneous information. It covers the essential purpose and the single parameter in two sentences.

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 for a basic understanding, but lacks detail on the return format and possible name values. Given the simple one-parameter interface, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 parameter 'name' is described as optional and for selecting a specific cadence, adding some semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify valid values, format, or default behavior.

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 returns cadence types with pattern, feel, and use, and mentions the optional name filter. It is specific about the resource and action, though it doesn't contrast with sibling tools.

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 choose this tool over other theory_* tools like theory_chord_progression or theory_diatonic_chords. The description only mentions the optional name parameter, not usage scenarios.

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