analyze_contrast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the selection prerequisite but fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), return value format, or side effects. 'Analyze' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, prerequisite warning, and use case context. Each sentence earns its place and is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb.

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 parameterless analysis tool without output schema, the description is reasonably complete, covering purpose, prerequisites, and domain. Minor gap: does not describe what analysis results are returned (e.g., decibel difference, ratio values).

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description adds value by implicitly documenting the tool's dependency on application state (the selected region) via 'Select a region first,' which compensates for the empty input 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 tool analyzes 'contrast between foreground and background audio' with a specific domain (WCAG accessibility). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analysis tools like analyze_beat_finder or analyze_find_clipping, relying on the agent to infer the distinction from the resource name alone.

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?

Provides a critical prerequisite ('Select a region first') and a specific use case (WCAG compliance checking). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other analysis tools (e.g., when to choose this over auto_analyze_audio) or when not to use it.

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