Analyze Grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses conditional behavior (swing is only computed when a reference drum stem is supplied) and the internal voting heuristic for bar 1 (kick, harmony, section changes, snare on 2/4). It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it mutates project state, or its cost/expense profile.

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?

A single dense sentence listing outputs followed by a short directive sentence; front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. The parenthetical voting detail is somewhat crammed but still earns its place by explaining bar-1 estimation.

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 re-explained, and the description covers what is estimated plus the follow-up workflow. It nevertheless leaves gaps around the required project parameter, bpm_hint, and the read-only/cost profile that an un-annotated tool should disclose.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'reference drum stem' to the source parameter, but never mentions the required project parameter or the bpm_hint parameter at all. The bpm_hint omission is especially costly for a tempo-estimation tool where a hint plausibly changes behavior.

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 position, A440 tuning offset, and swing. It partly distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping swing detection to the presence of a reference drum stem. However, it does not clearly separate itself from near-neighbors like analyze_swing, analyze_bars, or analyze_structure, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 a downstream workflow hint, implying this is a preparatory analysis step before setting up a project. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs analyze_swing/analyze_bars, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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