Stem Parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the measured dimensions and the 16-bar limit, and adds an interpretive warning about bleed, but it never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it changes project state, or what permissions or side effects apply.

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?

The description is compact and contains no obvious filler, with the measurement details and caution front-loaded. Its density and question-like opening reduce readability, but the content is appropriately sized for a three-parameter analysis tool with an output schema.

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 fully explained, and the description does cover what is measured. However, with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no explanation of the required 'project' parameter, it is not complete enough to guide invocation confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'source' and a max of 16 bars, but gives no format, default, or meaning for 'source,' 'bars,' or the required 'project' parameter, leaving all three effectively 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 conveys that the tool inspects one or several parts in a source and returns per-band movement, pitch, and onset details, but it never states a clear verb such as 'analyze' or 'measure.' The dense, domain-specific phrasing makes the core purpose inferable rather than explicit, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_* or stem_map_set.

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 an implied use case: 'read this before matching tone to a stem or trusting a "solo" stretch,' and explains that a loud but static band may indicate another player or bleed. However, it does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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