audition_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses offline playback, that a temporary item is created and removed afterwards, and precisely what attributes are measured (range, pitch-follow/transposition, ADSR, brightness, character). It omits whether the audition is audible in real time and roughly how long a call takes, which are the remaining gaps.

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 well-formed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by when to use it; the detailed attribute list is dense but informative rather than padding. Slightly long, but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does so thoroughly via the enumerated report fields. Combined with the offline/temporary-item disclosure, it covers most of what an agent needs, missing only duration/audibility expectations and parameter-level detail.

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 only 40%; only notes and track carry descriptions, while channel, velocity and note_seconds have bare titles. The description mentions 'notes across the range' but adds no format, channel, velocity or timing semantics, so it fails to compensate for the documented-parameter gap.

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?

States a specific action (plays notes offline, then reports) on a specific resource (the track's current instrument/sound), plus the exact analysis outputs it produces. No sibling tool does this – analyze_audio, get_instrument_notes and get_track_details all differ, and the description makes that distinction clear.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases: verifying a patch you designed, and characterizing an unfamiliar sound or preset. It does not name a concrete alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top tier.

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