Analyze Overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists output contents. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether analysis is expensive or time-consuming, or what happens when 'source' is omitted (the schema default is null). 'Analyze' weakly implies a safe read, but nothing is disclosed explicitly.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the resource named up front. It is efficient, though it is a noun fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose and action.

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, but for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves key gaps: the meaning of 'source' and its default behavior, and any indication of when to prefer this over the specialized analyze_* siblings.

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 both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither 'source' (optional, defaults to null) nor 'project' (required) is mentioned or explained; 'on the project grid' gestures vaguely at project scope but leaves unclear what an audio source is (file, track, clip) or what the default source is.

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 concrete outputs (loudness, key, section map with bars, level, dominant bands, chroma) of an audio source, so the resource is identifiable, but it uses no verb and gives no indication of how this overview differs from heavily overlapping siblings such as analyze_key, analyze_bars, analyze_sections, or analyze_structure. An agent can guess it is a combined summary but cannot confidently route to it over the specialized tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite a large family of sibling analyze_* tools. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'on the project grid', which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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