get_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact categories of metrics returned (spectral, dynamics, harmonic, structural, rhythmic, compression loss), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether a missing slug errors, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents and an args block. Every sentence adds information without padding; the example slug is a useful touch rather than filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, return categories, and parameter sourcing. It omits error behavior for unknown slugs and any explicit alternative mention, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 0% for the single slug parameter, so the description must compensate. It identifies slug as the sole argument and specifies its source ('Track slug from list_tracks') plus a concrete example format, adding real value. It doesn't describe handling of an invalid slug or the required/optional status explicitly.

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 ('Get only the analysis data for a track'), and the word 'only' distinguishes it from the broader get_track sibling. An agent can immediately tell this tool returns analysis data rather than full track metadata.

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?

Description gives a clear context for use ('Useful for comparing tracks numerically'), which implies when to reach for this tool over get_track. However, it never explicitly names get_track as the alternative or states when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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