analyze_progression

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing that the key is auto-detected when omitted and by enumerating the analytical features returned (secondary dominants, Neapolitan/augmented sixths, cadence detection, matched famous progressions). It does not mention input validation or failure modes for unparseable chords, which is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the operation first and then lists outputs; despite the long enumeration, every clause carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the analysis categories returned, and the parameters are well covered by the schema. The only shortfall is the absence of any guidance on when to prefer this over sibling analysis tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'key' is auto-detected when not supplied (the schema only shows a null default) and that analysis is Roman-numeral oriented, which frames how the chords parameter is interpreted.

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 verb+resource ('Roman-numeral analysis of a progression') and enumerates the analytical outputs (numerals, function, cadences, borrowed chords), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as analyze_harmony, identify_chord or suggest_progressions, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the subject matter (analyzing a chord progression), and 'the key (detected if not given)' hints at input flexibility. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like analyze_harmony or identify_chord, leaving the agent to infer which analysis tool fits.

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