detect_common_bpm

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. It explains parsing behavior, return values (detected_bpm, bpm_votes, confidence, hint), but does not disclose limitations like filename format assumptions.

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?

Two-sentence summary followed by structured Args/Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and returns well for a simple tool. Could mention edge cases (empty array), but handles 'None' case. Output schema lacking, but return values described.

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?

Only parameter 'file_paths' is described as a JSON array of absolute paths, clarifying the schema's string type. Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates with clear meaning.

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 returns the most common BPM parsed from filenames, with a specific use case after scan_audio_folder, distinguishing it from sibling tools like transport_set_bpm.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after narrowing down candidate loops to confirm tempo agreement before setting project BPM. Provides context but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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