generate_tone

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses parameter constraints (frequency range 1-20000 Hz, amplitude 0-1) and valid waveform values, but omits operational behavior: where the generated audio goes (cursor position? new track? returned as file?), whether it replaces a selection, or side effects on the project state.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence followed by structured Args section. No redundant text; every line conveys parameter constraints or defaults. Efficient format for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Parameter documentation is complete, but missing critical operational context for a generation tool: destination of the generated audio (inserted at cursor, new track, or returned as data). Without output schema or annotations, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about tool effects.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by documenting all 4 parameters with types, valid ranges (e.g., waveform enum values, frequency bounds), units (Hz, seconds), and default values.

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?

States 'Generate a tone signal' which provides a clear verb and resource, but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like generate_chirp (frequency-sweeping tone) or generate_dtmf (dual-tone). No indication that this produces a constant-frequency tone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_chirp, generate_noise, or generate_dtmf. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether a project must be open).

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