Analyze Envelope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the result shape ('digits 0-9, max 8 bars') but says nothing about side effects, permissions, cost, or what the tool actually returns as a whole, leaving the safety and behavior profile unexplained.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the input encoding then the payoff. Dense and essentially waste-free, though the 'Level per step as digits' phrasing is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 spelled out, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most inputs (source, project, bars, steps_per_beat) and the tool's behavioral profile undocumented.

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. The description only clarifies 'band' (sub|bass|lowmid|mid|himid|air) and marginally bounds 'bars' (max 8); 'source', 'project', and 'steps_per_beat' remain entirely undocumented in both places.

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 tells the agent this tool derives an amplitude envelope ('Level per step as digits 0-9') and what it surfaces ('sidechain pumping, gating, note rhythm'), which is a clear specific activity. It differentiates loosely from other analyze_* siblings by naming the phenomenon it detects, but 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?

There is no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of any sibling such as analyze_drums, analyze_bars, or analyze_swing. The stated outputs imply a use case but the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over the many other analysis tools.

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