Analyze a chart's harmony

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

Discloses the main outputs and the two input modalities. With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It is transparent about what the tool returns but does not mention potential errors, prerequisites, or side effects. Still, the core behavior is well-covered.

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?

Very concise (~50 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value. No redundant or superfluous content.

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 the tool complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the output content and the primary input modes. It omits some optional parameters (bpm, style, etc.), but these are fully documented in the schema. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of the two input modes but does not significantly deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Minimal extra semantic value.

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?

Clearly states it performs harmonic analysis for solo planning, listing specific outputs (Roman numerals, chord function, chord-scale recommendations, ii-V-I detection, jam plan). Distinguishes two input modes (slug vs inline key+measures). No sibling tool does analysis, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Describes when to use (for harmonic analysis) and how to use (via slug or key+measures). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but no alternative analysis tool exists among siblings, so context is sufficient.

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