als_detect_key

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds that it works without Live running and uses a specific algorithm (Krumhansl-Kessler). This is meaningful beyond annotations. It does not mention error handling or edge cases.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and condition, second explains note pooling behavior, third details parameters. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 and has an output schema (not shown). The description covers input semantics well but does not mention return format or error cases. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains path as filesystem path, weight with listed options (duration, velocity, product, count), and track_index for optional single-track pooling. This adds value beyond schema titles and 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 detects key/scale of a saved .als file without Live running, using Krumhansl-Kessler algorithm. It specifies the resource (.als file) and action (detect key), and distinguishes from siblings like detect_clip_key which operate on live session. The exclusion of 'WITHOUT Live running' adds specificity.

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 explains when to use: for saved .als files offline, with options to pool from all clips or a specific track. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear. More detailed guidance on weight selection would improve.

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