Analyze Swing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the default source resolution chain (reference drum stem if present, else reference/render), the meaning of the returned value, and that straight timing yields 0. It does not state read-only/safety characteristics or latency, but for a read-oriented analysis tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core measurement, then usage, with no filler sentences. The 16ths/8ths parenthetical is dense but earns its place by defining the metric. Slightly packed but efficient.

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-value documentation is rightly omitted, and the description covers purpose, timing semantics, default source, and workflow. The only real gap is the unexplained required `project` parameter and no safety indication, which keeps it from 5.

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 does explain the `source` parameter's default and value syntax ('track:<hats>', reference stem), which is valuable. However the required `project` parameter gets no explanation at all, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific measurement: how late swung hi-hats land, reported in beats and ms, with clear unit semantics (16ths vs 8ths) and 'Straight = 0'. This is far more specific than a tautology and implicitly distinguishes it from generic analyzers like analyze_grid or analyze_notes, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'on a reference before writing swung notes, and on track:<hats> to check yours.' This is concrete workflow context. It lacks a when-not or an explicit alternative-tool pointer, so it falls just short of 5.

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