Analyze Notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only a bar cap (max 16) and threshold behavior. It does not say whether existing notes are overwritten, whether it writes anything at all or just returns data, what permissions are needed, or how the result is delivered. The '-> notes_write format' phrasing leaves the read/write nature genuinely ambiguous.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the core function, which is good, but the arrow notation and fragments read as under-specification rather than disciplined brevity. Every word is load-bearing only because so little is said.

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. However, for a 7-parameter audio-analysis tool with no annotations, the description is far too thin: it omits what the tool consumes (audio source), how 'source' is interpreted, and how it relates to sibling analysis tools. It is not complete enough to call correctly without trial and error.

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?

Seven parameters at 0% schema coverage, yet the description addresses only 'threshold' (with useful semantics: raise it to drop weak/ghost notes). bars, fmin, quant, source, project, and max_poly are undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent must guess at units, formats, and defaults.

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 resource (notes) and an output target ('notes_write format'), plus a constraint (max 16 bars), so the agent can roughly tell it produces note data. But 'Polyphonic note estimate' is jargon rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like notes_from_audio, notes_from_audio_loop, analyze_pitches, or analyze_melody. Purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

The only guidance is a parameter hint ('Raise threshold to drop weak/ghost notes'), which is not a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when this tool should be chosen over the many sibling analyze_* or notes_from_audio* tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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