analyze_beat_finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the project by adding labels to the label track, creating one if needed, and it tells the agent how to retrieve the results via label_list. This adequately covers the key side effects for a simple tool.

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 definition is short and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by side-effect and readback details, then the single parameter. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema content.

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 tool's low complexity, one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the side effect, how to read the results, and the parameter semantics. Missing edge-case details are low-value for this simple operation.

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 explain the parameter. It does: threshold_percent is given a range (5-100), a direction ('Lower finds more beats'), and a default (65). This fully compensates for the schema's bare property definition.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find beats in the selected audio and add a label at each one.' It clearly states both the action and the resulting side effect, and the beat-finding focus distinguishes it from the many label_* and analyze_* sibling tools.

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 identifies the prerequisite ('selected audio') and gives a clear follow-up workflow: 'call label_list afterward to read the detected beat positions.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage context is clear.

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