effect_phaser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters with ranges and defaults. It does not state whether the effect is destructive, whether it requires a selection, or what the output format is (though likely replaces selection). This leaves uncertainty about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

One sentence stating the action, followed by a clear parameter list. No extraneous text. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse. Each line in the list is essential.

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?

All parameters are covered with ranges and defaults. However, there is no description of the output or return value (though likely no return, but agent might benefit from knowing). Also, the description lacks a brief explanation of the effect's sonic character (e.g., sweeping filter effect) which could help the agent decide. Still, for a parameter-heavy effect, it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description bears full burden. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: allowed ranges (e.g., stages 2-24 even only, dry_wet 0-255), units (Hz, degrees, percentage), and defaults. This compensates completely for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the purpose: 'Apply phaser effect to the selected audio.' This is a specific verb and resource, and among many sibling effect tools (reverb, echo, distortion, etc.), it uniquely identifies the phaser effect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., selected audio) or contrast with other effects (e.g., wah-wah or flanger, which are missing but implied). The agent has no context for selecting this tool over others.

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