Align

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm (onset cross-correlation) and that the result is a lag value applied elsewhere, implying a non-destructive read. It does not state permissions, cost, or explicitly that it mutates nothing, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 followed by the actionable workflow. No wasted words, though the inline example is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing on bars and project, making it only partially complete for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It explains band with a concrete example ('sub' for kicks) and implies a/b are the two sources, but bars and the required project parameter are entirely unexplained, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 states a specific computation ('timing lag between two sources (onset cross-correlation)') with a concrete verb+resource, and the parenthetical explains the method. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic analysis siblings like compare or cmp_*, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: compute the lag, then apply it via project_set(offset_sec = offset_sec + lag). That tells the agent exactly when and how to use the result. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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