get_phrases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes the analysis behavior (finding rests, identifying phrases, flagging section boundaries) and details the output semantics, including the meaning of the 'shape' label. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects, the term 'analyze' implies a read-only 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: it explains the mechanism, the output fields, the shape-label semantics, and the recommended next step. No redundant or filler content; it is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the phrase fields (note index range, note count, position, pitch range, lyrics, shape) and explaining their meaning. It also covers the use-case context and follow-up action. The tool has 4 params but no output schema, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 documentation covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It references 'restThreshold' and 'sectionThreshold' only implicitly via 'long rests' and 'section boundaries' but does not elaborate on their syntax or defaults.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze a track's melody into phrases by finding rests between notes.' It identifies the specific resource (track melody) and distinguishes this analysis tool from sibling tools like get_notes. The context 'recommended first step when flowing lyrics onto an imported melody' further clarifies its unique role.

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 frames this as 'the recommended first step' for a specific workflow (flowing lyrics onto an imported melody) and directs the user to follow up with set_lyrics. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when *not* to use this tool or directly compare against alternatives like get_notes.

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