Analyze Drums

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: output granularity (3 band lanes, 16-bar cap), the false-positive risk on mixed sources where non-drum elements register as hits, and the downstream use (paste into pattern_write). It omits sensitivity/source-authorization details, but the false-positive warning is genuine behavioral insight.

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 output format, then workflow integration, then source guidance. Four sentences with no filler, though the 'Paste into pattern_write' and source hints could be slightly tighter.

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?

Output schema exists so return format is covered, and the source/mix caveat is strong. However, with five params at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the total absence of any explanation for `sens` and `steps_per_beat` leaves the definition incomplete 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `source` parameter ('track:<drum track>', 'ref:drums', 'render', 'ref') and the 16-bar cap tied to `bars`, but leaves `sens` and `steps_per_beat` entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource and precise output: 'Drum hits as step strings per bar in 3 lanes (low/snare/hat bands), max 16 bars.' This clearly separates it from sibling analyzers like analyze_grid, analyze_structure, or analyze_bars without needing the schema.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions ('Best on an isolated drum source: track:<drum track> after render(stems=True), or ref:drums') and a when-not/degraded case ('On a full mix the lanes are band activity, so bass, pads and leads also register as hits'). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the source-selection guidance is explicit enough to steer invocation.

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