dancerudiments_sample

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context, the 64-pips-per-beat quantization, which the schema never states. It does not say what happens with an unknown name, whether output is deterministic, or what volume of data 4096 pips implies.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the underspecification rather than being a virtue on its own.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with a nested required arguments object and an obscure domain noun, the definition omits the name source, valid-name enumeration, and whether the call errors on bad input. That leaves an agent unable to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it partially does so: it clarifies that pips are signed integers at 64 per beat, a unit the schema omits entirely. However it never explains where a valid "name" comes from or what the 1-4096 item limit on pips means, so the nested arguments object remains half-documented.

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?

"Sample a named native movement" gives a verb (sample) and an object (movement), but "native movement" is undefined terminology that an agent cannot resolve from the name or siblings. Nothing distinguishes it from dancerudiments_catalogue or react_timeline_sequence_sample_beat_clock beyond the pips unit.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative among the many sibling sampling/catalogue tools. An agent must guess whether to call dancerudiments_catalogue first to obtain a valid name.

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