Cmp Arrangement

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output format (one char per bar, per stem, yourself vs reference), but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, its cost, or any side effects. For an apparent analysis tool this is adequate but thin.

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, front-loaded with the tool's function and ending with the payoff ('macro structure at a glance'). Nothing is wasted, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic.

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, and the description adds useful framing about the map format. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never mentions 'project' or 'id' by name; only the implicit 'yours vs reference' framing loosely maps to them.

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 specific resource and action: it produces arrangement maps comparing 'yours vs reference, per stem' with 'one char per bar'. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like cmp_summary and cmp_sections, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 hints at a use case ('the macro structure at a glance') but gives no when-to-use instruction, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing this over cmp_sections, cmp_bars, or cmp_summary. The agent must infer the routing.

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