Detect onsets

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it walks through the signal chain (band filter -> RMS -> baseline compare -> threshold), explains the macOS permission prompt, describes the output pulse channel, and mentions the optional WebSocket event broadcast. This gives the agent a clear mental model of what the tool does at runtime.

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 dense but well-structured, covering purpose, differentiation, internals, sources, events, and relationship to a sibling. It is somewhat long and repeats the 'Unlike create_tempo_sync' idea twice (once at the start and once at the end), which is slightly redundant. Still, every paragraph contributes meaningful information.

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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is built, how it behaves, what sources are supported, and a notable side effect (macOS permission prompt). It could have mentioned how the generated container integrates with the existing network or how to access the per-band channels, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the Threshold and Sensitivity knobs relate to the detection chain, and it mentions the source options (live device, file, oscillator, existing CHOP) in context. This goes beyond per-parameter schema descriptions, though not every parameter is elaborated in the description itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a transient/onset detector that flags kick/snare/hi-hat hits in live audio and exposes a per-band pulse channel... on a Null CHOP.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_tempo_sync by stating it follows actual audio rather than a fixed internal clock, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts with create_tempo_sync ('Unlike create_tempo_sync') and even calls itself 'the audio-following complement to create_tempo_sync.' It provides concrete use cases (e.g., bind a parameter to flash or cut on kick), making it clear when to choose this tool over the tempo-sync alternative.

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