extract_single_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the side effect ('reads the file from disk'), states what is returned (detected pitch plus single-cycle sample buffer), and describes edge-case behavior (aperiodic content returns {ok: False, reason: ...} instead of crashing). It stops short of covering invalid paths or permission failures.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then side effects, example, and edge cases follow as labeled fragments. Every line carries signal and there is no filler, though the formatting is a bit terse and line-broken.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies return content and error behavior, which is helpful. However, the undocumented frame_size parameter and absence of any when-to-use guidance leave gaps an agent must guess around.

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% and the description only demonstrates 'path' through the example. The 'frame_size' parameter (default 2048) is never mentioned in the description, so an agent has no added meaning for what it controls or how it affects detection.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('a candidate single-cycle loop in a local audio file plus its detected pitch'), so an agent knows exactly what comes out. It implicitly separates itself from session-state siblings by specifying 'a local audio file', but it never explicitly names a sibling alternative like analyze_audio.

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 concrete example (extract_single_cycle(path="/stems/kick.wav")) and the 'local audio file' framing imply the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no reference to related tools like analyze_audio or the groove family.

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