analyze_groove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds context about analyzing 'raw MIDI PPQ onset deviation off the grid', but does not disclose whether it operates on selected items or the entire project. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate behavioral context but lacks details about input context.

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 highly concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states functionality, and the second provides marketing context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, it could be more complete by specifying the contextual input (e.g., whether it analyzes the selected MIDI item or the whole project). Slight gap but otherwise sufficient.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it could clarify that no arguments are required. The baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines, and the description adds no confusion.

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 clearly states the tool computes 'swing%% and tightness' from raw MIDI onset deviations. The verb 'compute' and specific metrics distinguish it from siblings like 'quantize_notes' or 'analyze_audio_character', which perform different tasks. The claim of being a unique differentiator further clarifies its purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It only implies it is for swing analysis and notes its uniqueness. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.

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