Analyze audio (tempo/key)

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

Discloses key is estimated and that analysis does not impact FL state, adding beyond annotations which only indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second adds safety and caveat. No extraneous information.

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?

Description mentions all key outputs (tempo, key, duration, beats, onsets). With an output schema present, this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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?

The sole parameter 'path' has a description in schema, but description adds value by noting MP3 requires ffmpeg on PATH, an important condition not in schema.

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 it estimates tempo and key of an audio file, with additional outputs (duration, beats, onsets). Differentiates from siblings by specifying it does not touch FL, which is distinct from tools like fl_get_tempo that read project tempo.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Pure offline analysis -- does NOT touch FL.' Implies safe for external analysis without side effects. However, does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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