beat_grid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the output format (JSON), the scope (whole file), units (ms), the measurement origin (start of file), and the relationship to `probe_audio`. It does not mention potential side effects or failure modes, but for an analysis-only tool this is adequate.

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 three sentences long with no wasted words. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the output, contrasting with `probe_audio`, and listing concrete use cases. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Given that the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It lists all the key output contents (beat times, downbeats, tempo candidates, stability score) and gives usage context. It could mention limitations or error conditions, but for this level of complexity it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% as the sole parameter `audio_path` is described as 'Path to a WAV, FLAC, mp3, or ogg file.' The description restates the supported formats but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the full beat grid of an audio file as JSON, enumerating the contained data (beat times, downbeats, tempo candidates, stability score). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `probe_audio` by explaining that this is the detailed version of the compact `tempo` summary.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'line events up to the beat, see where the downbeats fall, or weigh a half/double-tempo alternative.' The alternative for compact tempo needs is clearly identified as `probe_audio`, which keeps only count and mean interval, making the choice between tools explicit.

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