tap_tempo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for repeated calls but fails to specify key behaviors such as timeout, reset conditions, or immediate effect on playback. This leaves significant ambiguity about how the tool accumulates taps and sets the tempo.

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 extremely concise, with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core functionality in a single sentence, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks guidance on the expected tap interval or debounce behavior, which would be helpful for proper usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'set tempo by tap timing' via repeated calls. The verb-resource combination is specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'set_tempo' (direct setting) and 'get_tempo' (read-only).

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 implies the usage pattern ('call repeatedly'), which provides clear context for interactive tempo setting. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling 'set_tempo' is a natural alternative for non-interactive use.

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