analyze_beat_finder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating side effect ('add labels') and the selection requirement, but fails to clarify other behavioral traits like idempotency, performance on long selections, or what happens when no beats are detected.

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 appropriately sized with clear front-loading (purpose first, parameters second). The Args block is standard and efficient. No redundant or wasteful text is present.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, selection context, side effects, and parameter semantics. It could be improved by mentioning return behavior or edge cases, but it suffices for selection and invocation.

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 must fully compensate. The Args section effectively documents 'thres_val' with its range (0-100), semantic meaning (lower = more sensitive), and default value, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Find beats') and the resource ('selected audio'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_label_sounds' or 'analyze_find_clipping' by specifying 'beats' and the side effect of adding labels.

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 prerequisites by mentioning 'selected audio', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'analyze_label_sounds' or 'label_regular_intervals'. It does not specify when NOT to use the tool.

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