Spectrogram

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the side effect (writes a PNG file) and the return value (the PNG path), which is useful. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what happens to the out path default.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Appropriate length, though very terse given the tool accepts multiple options.

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 format needn't be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, a four-parameter file-writing tool needs more than two sentences. An agent cannot infer what project, source, or bars control.

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% across four parameters (out, bars, source, project), so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies the "bars" and "out" parameters via "bar lines" and "the PNG path"; project, source, and the actual meanings/format of out and bars are left undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ("Write") and resource ("mel spectrogram PNG with bar lines"), and the parenthetical "the one non-text view" meaningfully separates it from the large family of analyze_*/notes_* text-oriented siblings. Clear enough to identify the operation, though it doesn't describe scope details.

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?

The aside "(the one non-text view)" hints at when an agent would choose this over the many text-analysis siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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