Cmp Zoom

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, and it is thin: it never states whether this is read-only, whether it requires a loaded reference, what happens with missing/invalid bars, or performance/rate characteristics. It does disclose output semantics (the b/r/y/UPPERCASE legend), which is genuine added context, earning it above the minimum.

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?

It is a single compact sentence, which is appropriately sized, but it is heavily jargon-dense and not front-loaded from a newcomer's perspective. The legend (b/r/y/UPPERCASE) and layer info are packed together without structural separation, slightly hurting readability despite brevity.

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?

Given six parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and output schema present (justifying omission of return values), the description is still too sparse. It leaves project, stem, and id semantics unexplained and provides no usage context versus the many comparison siblings, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.

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 six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only partially covers bar/bars ('bar..bar+bars-1') and layers ('level bands hits notes'), leaving project, stem (default 'mix'), and id completely unexplained. The critical 'stem' default and its meaning versus 'project' are unaddressed, which is a significant gap for an A/B comparison tool.

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 says it performs a 'Step-level A vs B' comparison over a bar range ('bar..bar+bars-1'), which identifies a specific verb (compare) and resource (step-level note data across bars). However, it uses cryptic shorthand (b, r, y, UPPERCASE markers) that assumes domain familiarity, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like cmp_bars, cmp_worst, cmp_sections, compare, or sound_compare.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many comparison siblings (cmp_* family, compare, sound_compare, cmp_run). The description only explains what output looks like, not when this tool is the right choice. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and terse content.

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