effect_repeat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses the valid parameter range (1-128). It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, creates new clips, or modifies the existing selection.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Args:' section provides clear structure for parameter documentation, though the format is slightly informal.

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 single-parameter effect tool without output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but lacks context about selection prerequisites and side effects that would help an agent use it 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 0%, but the description compensates effectively by explaining the semantic meaning ('Number of times to repeat'), valid constraints (1-128), and default value for the count parameter.

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 (Repeat) and target (selected audio). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_duplicate' that may have similar functionality.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this effect versus alternatives like 'edit_duplicate', nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that audio must be selected first, despite 'selected audio' implying it).

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