analyze_missing

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that a local analysis plugin is run and that missing values are filled in, but it does not mention side effects such as metadata writes, permissions, response behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a notable gap for a mutating operation.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action, target, and method. No wasted words or redundant 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description explains the operation and target clearly. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves out expected return values and potential side effects, so it is only minimally 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'limit' is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (fill in missing BPM/key), a specific resource (files lacking them), and the method (running the local detect_tempo/detect_key plugin). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks or scan_folder.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: for tracks that are missing BPM/key data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route to it appropriately.

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