riff_grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it reads the saved .rpp file rather than Reaper's live project, carries the same stale-material caveat as profile_track, returns a proposal rather than an auto-beat, explains the percentile rows as attack-strength heuristics, and warns that the grid can read a 16th early if the stem is offset.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences all add useful caveats, limitations, or workflow routing. The paragraph is dense and long, but nearly every sentence earns its place given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 complex, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the workflow position, file-reading behavior, proposal-vs-automation expectation, row semantics, timing risk, and next step. It omits little that an agent would need to invoke and use the result 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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds contextual meaning about what 'track' and 'project' represent (a guitar stem and a saved .rpp file), but it does not add per-parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'read a guitar stem's transients into a proposed KICK GRID.' It also positions the tool as 'Step 1 of the drum workflow' and explicitly distinguishes its proposal role from auto-beat generators and from the downstream insert_groove step.

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?

It clearly places the tool in a workflow ('Step 1'), says the user must correct the proposal, and names the next action ('Transcribe the row the user picks into a DSL, then insert_groove'). It does not spell out when not to use the tool or name an alternative for the same job, so it falls just short of a 5.

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