Analyze Melody

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output format and a hard 16-bar limit, plus the input-material requirement, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens on non-monophonic input.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the core transformation and no wasted words. Brevity is a virtue here, though it verges on under-specification given the parameter load.

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 explained. But for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most parameters and all failure/permission behavior undocumented, which is inadequate.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only the bar limit (relating to 'bars') is hinted at; fmin, fmax, quant, source, min_conf, and project are never explained.

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 transformation: monophonic pitch becomes a note list in notes_write format, capped at 16 bars. That is a clear verb+resource+output mapping. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings like analyze_pitches or analyze_notes.

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?

"Best on a stem or a soloed line" gives an implied precondition and, by implication, a failure condition on polyphonic material. It names no explicit alternative tool, so the agent is left to infer routing among analyze_pitches/analyze_notes/notes_from_audio.

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