Analyze Structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the output shape (bands + stems, one char per bar), that sections are lettered by similar material, that repeats and loop length are reported, and critically the default source resolution ('reference if the project has one, else your render'). It omits any statement of read-only nature or cost, but for an analysis tool this is meaningfully transparent.

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 the core purpose before the source-mode detail. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. For a 3-param analysis tool with no annotations, the main residual gap is the undocumented project parameter and absent sibling routing, but the core invocation context is covered.

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 explains the source parameter well (ref vs render + default logic) and implies the stems boolean through 'bands + stems', but the project parameter is entirely undocumented and the stems behavior is only inferable, not stated.

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+resource ('Analyze Structure' → macro view of a whole song) and enumerates the concrete outputs: arrangement map, sections lettered by material, repeats, loop length. It clarifies scope ('whole song', macro view) but never names the closely related siblings (analyze_sections, analyze_bars) to differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied via 'macro view of a whole song', suggesting it is the high-level counterpart to bar/section analyzers, and it explains the source-mode choice (ref vs render with default resolution). However, it never says when to prefer this over analyze_sections or analyze_bars, nor gives any explicit when-to-use trigger.

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