Analyze Kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that audio files are written to <project>/analysis/kit/comp_<n>.wav, the folding/print format of the analysis, and the constraint not to use the outputs in a render. It stops short of stating compute cost or whether the source audio is modified, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core verb and mechanism, and the tuning guidance and sibling comparison each add value rather than padding. The second and third sentences are dense run-ons with stacked parentheticals, which slightly hurts readability, but little is wasted.

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?

The tool is analytically complex, yet the description covers the mechanism, side effects, output locations, and tuning guidance; and since an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required. The main gap is the under-explained source and bars inputs, which leaves a small hole 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 conveys real meaning for k (number of components, with a stopping heuristic) and cycle (the loop length in bars the hit pattern folds over), but source (default ref:drums), bars, and the exact indexing of cycle are left unexplained, leaving roughly half the parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Discover the pieces of a drum kit") and names the NMF mechanism (splits into k components, each a spectrum + hit time) plus the concrete artifact produced (comp_<n>.wav). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling analyze_drums ("shows 3 band lanes and hides pieces"), so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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 a concrete tuning rule for when to stop ("Raise k until new components are only fragments (< 2% energy, or a copy of another's pattern)") and names alternatives by pointing output at sound_import/instrument_fit while warning it is "never in the render." The conditions for choosing this tool over analyze_drums are stated outright.

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