analyze_contrast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what output is produced (e.g., a label, a value), or any side effects. The behavioral outcome remains ambiguous.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, prerequisite, use case. Every sentence adds distinct value. No verbosity or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, what to do first, and why it's useful. It does not explain the return value or format, but for a simple analysis tool, this is mostly adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivial). The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and use case, justifying a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'analyze' and a clear resource 'contrast between foreground and background audio'. It differentiates itself from siblings like analyze_beat_finder or analyze_label_sounds by focusing on contrast for accessibility, and mentions WCAG compliance.

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 description explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Select a region first.' It also indicates a use case (accessibility compliance). It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but given no direct sibling for contrast, this is acceptable.

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