Detect Beats

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing in Premiere is modified, that decoding is capped at 30 minutes, that analysis runs on a bounded mono stream, and that results include confidence and half/double-time alternatives. Annotations only state readOnly/destructive/idempotent flags, so this added pipeline context is genuine value; the description's 'without changing Premiere' phrasing is slightly in tension with readOnlyHint=false, though it is scoped to project state rather than a claim of being globally side-effect free.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the implementation detail (FFmpeg, autocorrelation) is compressed into the second. The technical density of sentence two is justified by the trust and limit information it conveys, though it is heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with a full output schema, the description covers scope, input constraints, and output character without redundantly explaining the return shape. It could go one step further by indicating how the result feeds downstream tools, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already carries media_path and max_beats semantics. The description adds only the implicit 'local file' framing, which the schema already states as an absolute path; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Estimate a steady beat grid from a local audio or video file') and pins the scope to an analysis-only operation. It is easily distinguished from neighbouring detection tools like detect_audio_transients and from downstream consumers such as plan_beat_montage.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (run this when you need a beat grid from a local file) and the 30-minute decode cap hints at its intended scale, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any routing to alternatives such as detect_audio_transients or plan_beat_montage.

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