profile_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that it reads the saved .rpp on disk (stale on dirty projects), that the result repeats this caveat, that it is slow (up to 600s), and that it returns numbers rather than verdicts. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads purpose before caveats and parameters, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long, but nothing reads as filler given the complexity of the tool.

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?

For a 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the disk-vs-live caveat, the relay instruction, the numbers-not-verdicts contract, track selection, and the timeout window. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the windowing relationship between bars, start_bar and max_seconds, and the DI preference for the track parameter. It adds usage intent beyond the schema without restating syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('profile a guitar stem bar by bar to plan drums') and enumerates the exact outputs produced (onset density, IOI regularity, decay ratio, accent grid, section boundaries). An agent can distinguish this from generic analysis siblings like analyze_track without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: point it at the DI track not the amped stem, and window the slow run with bars/start_bar/max_seconds. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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