audio_melody

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the result contents: notes with start times, durations, note names, cents deviation, and a compact text form, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output format, followed by actionable tuning advice. No filler, though the parenthetical source list is slightly long for its information content.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is produced and how to tune the frequency bounds. The main gap is the unexplained start/end time-window parameters, but overall an agent has enough 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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by explaining fmin/fmax and giving concrete ranges (bass 40-400, voice 80-1000), but path, start, and end are left entirely undocumented.

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 (Transcribe) and a narrowly-scoped resource (monophonic line) and enumerates the applicable sources (voice, whistle, solo instrument, synth lead, SFX pitch). The 'monophonic' constraint implicitly separates it from the broader audio_transcribe sibling, but no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly.

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?

Gives tuning guidance for fmin/fmax with concrete ranges, which is useful operating advice, but never states when to choose this tool over audio_transcribe or audio_analyze. Usage context is only implied by the monophonic-signal constraint.

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