Analyze Grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the thumb band (55-190 Hz) vs finger band (1.5-6 kHz) cross-check, reports disagreement and a likely-beat verdict, and gives the 3-3-2 bossa pitfall. What's missing is any statement that this is a read-only/non-destructive analysis and roughly what it costs or requires.

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?

Outputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, with downstream use and the band cross-check following. The closing bossa-guitar example (122 BPM for 92) is illustrative but verbose for the space it occupies.

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, and the behavioral narrative is strong. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the definition leaves the agent guessing about inputs and safety profile.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters and it largely does not. 'Reference drum stem' loosely gestures at the source parameter but never names it, and bpm_hint — a meaningful input that changes behavior — is entirely unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb ('Estimate') and enumerates concrete outputs: tempo, bar-1 time, tuning offset from A440, and swing. That is far more than a restatement of 'Analyze Grid'. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like analyze_swing, analyze_tuning, or analyze_bars, which it partially overlaps.

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?

'Use the result in project_new/project_set' gives downstream context, and 'with a reference drum stem' implies a precondition for the swing metric. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to analyze_swing, analyze_tuning, or analyze_bars, so the agent must infer routing.

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