Analyze Spectrum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes output content but says nothing about the operation being read-only/non-destructive, whether it can mutate state, or any permission or cost considerations, leaving the safety profile unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the window-format rules. The window sentence is dense but every clause earns its place by disambiguating span versus t0/t1 semantics.

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 output schema means return values needn't be described, yet the params remain half-documented (0% coverage, source/project missing) and the safety profile is absent. It is adequate for basic invocation but has clear gaps for a five-parameter tool.

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 explain all five params. It clearly defines span (fractional bars, end-exclusive) and t0/t1 (seconds) with worked examples, but leaves 'source' and 'project' completely unexplained and even references a 'bars' parameter that does not exist in the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific analysis and its output (1/3-octave levels + strongest peaks with note names), which distinguishes it from siblings like spectrogram or analyze_timbre. It never names an alternative tool directly, but the content mapping is clear enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling alternative is named among the many analyze_* tools. The only hint is the parenthetical 'like the other analysis tools,' which implies a convention rather than telling 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.