stemlab_rudiments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the call returns a retained background job rather than a result, base effect flags include write, and conditional inference/download effects must be checked via danceflow_component. That is real behavioral disclosure an agent would otherwise miss, though it omits job retention/lifetime and any rate or cost limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the async follow-up. Dense and largely waste-free, though phrasing like 'retained audio attack evidence' costs the reader effort without adding precision.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the async job-model plus effect-flag caveat covers the most consequential unknowns for a write-flagged, non-idempotent tool. The remaining gap is that it never tells the agent what the nested permissions object is for beyond the schema's own note.

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 50% and the description explains none of the actual inputs. Key arguments such as source, output, collection (a six-value enum embedded in the schema), bpm, stems, max_patterns, and first_beat_seconds get no meaning added, and the required source/output distinction is left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific verb (match) and both resources ('retained audio attack evidence' and 'installed DanceRudiments patterns'), which distinguishes it from siblings like stemlab_record_rudiment and dancerudiments_sample. The terminology is domain jargon, but the operation is identifiable.

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?

It gives clear post-invocation routing (poll danceflow_job_status) and points to danceflow_component for conditional effects, which is useful procedural guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over stemlab_record_rudiment or the dancerudiments_* siblings, so the selection logic is only implied.

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