Analyze Kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses that the tool prints pitch region, energy share and hit pattern, and writes component audio files under <project>/analysis/kit/. It also warns not to use the outputs in the render. It does not mention overwrite behavior or computational cost, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and then layers in sibling differentiation, output behavior, tuning guidance and usage context. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause contributes useful information.

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. The description still covers the analysis method, printed diagnostics, file outputs and intended downstream uses. The main gap is that one input parameter (bars) and the exact source parameter format are not explained anywhere.

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 compensate. It explains k as the number of NMF components, cycle as the loop length in bars, source as the drum source, and project as the output root. It does not explain the bars parameter or give exact source syntax, so coverage is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it discovers drum-kit pieces by splitting a drum source with NMF into k components. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_drums, which shows only 3 band lanes and hides pieces.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('when a snare, kick or hat sounds dated, generic or not the genre's'), names the alternative analyze_drums, and says the exported WAVs should be used as sound_import/instrument_fit targets but never in the render. It even provides a stopping heuristic for choosing k.

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