Filopastry

by youwenshao

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.2.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries, such as 'analyze' (complete audio analysis) vs. 'analyze_rhythm' and 'analyze_spectrum' (more specific analyses), 'generate_pattern' (complete pattern from style) vs. 'ai_generate_pattern' (pattern from natural language), and 'append', 'insert', 'replace', and 'write' all manipulating pattern code with ambiguous distinctions. This overlap increases the risk of agent misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb-only snake_case pattern, such as 'add_effect', 'analyze_rhythm', 'generate_melody', and 'set_tempo'. However, there are minor deviations like 'ai_status' (noun_verb) and 'init' (abbreviated verb), which slightly break the consistency but do not severely impact readability.
Tool Count2/5
With 50 tools, this server is overloaded for a Strudel pattern generation and editing domain. Many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality, such as the multiple AI-related tools or redundant analysis functions. This high count likely overwhelms agents and complicates tool selection.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Strudel pattern manipulation, including creation (e.g., 'generate_pattern', 'ai_generate_pattern'), editing (e.g., 'append', 'transpose'), analysis (e.g., 'analyze', 'detect_tempo'), playback control (e.g., 'play', 'pause'), and utility functions (e.g., 'save', 'undo'). There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows in this domain.
Average 2.6/5 across 50 of 50 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this generates audio, MIDI, notation, or another format; whether it's a read-only generation or modifies existing content; what permissions might be needed; or any other behavioral characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool produces, how to interpret results, or provide any context about musical bassline generation in this system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate bassline' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what a bassline is in this musical context, what format it generates, or how it differs from sibling tools like generate_pattern or generate_melody.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for musical generation (generate_melody, generate_pattern, generate_chord_progression, etc.), there's no indication of when bassline generation is appropriate versus other musical element generation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove effect' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks necessary detail and structure, failing to convey purpose or usage in a meaningful way, which doesn't earn its place as a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's potential for destructive behavior (implied by 'remove'), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'effect' documented as 'Effect to remove'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove effect' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates the verb 'remove' and resource 'effect', it doesn't specify what kind of effect (audio effect, visual effect, etc.) or from what context it's being removed, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'add_effect' or 'clear'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear', 'undo', or 'replace', leaving the agent with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Complete audio analysis' gives no information about what the tool actually does, what it returns, whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, or any performance characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. 'Complete audio analysis' is vague and doesn't provide enough information to be useful. The single sentence fails to earn its place by not conveying meaningful information about the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'Complete audio analysis' and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'complete' analysis entails, or how it differs from other analysis tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't contradict the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema provides complete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Complete audio analysis' restates the tool name 'analyze' in a slightly expanded form, making it tautological rather than providing specific meaning. It doesn't specify what type of analysis is performed or what resources are involved, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_rhythm' or 'analyze_spectrum'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing various types of analysis (rhythm, spectrum, pattern analysis via AI tools), there's no indication of what makes 'analyze' distinct or when it should be preferred over more specific analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rhythm analysis' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, requires specific inputs, or has side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. It fails to provide any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too sparse to be useful, failing to convey necessary information about the tool's function or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (analysis typically involves processing and returning insights) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, what it returns, or how it differs from other analysis tools in the server.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The baseline score for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rhythm analysis' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'analyze_rhythm' without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling analysis tools like 'analyze', 'analyze_spectrum', or 'detect_tempo', leaving the purpose vague and unhelpful for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for analysis and generation, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Key detection' gives no information about what the tool actually does operationally - whether it analyzes audio input, processes musical patterns, returns confidence scores, requires specific input formats, or has any side effects. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information about the tool's function, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the musical/audio processing context (with 55 sibling tools), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely vague description, this is severely incomplete. The description fails to explain what the tool does, what it returns, or how it differs from other analysis tools in the server, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps since there are no parameters to document. The description's brevity is appropriate given the parameterless nature of the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Key detection' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't identify the resource being acted upon (e.g., audio, music, pattern) or provide any meaningful context about the detection process. While it hints at musical key analysis, it lacks the specificity needed for clear understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 55 sibling tools including various analysis functions (analyze, analyze_rhythm, analyze_spectrum) and pattern-related tools, there's no indication of what distinguishes this key detection from other analytical operations or when it would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Redo action' gives no information about what the tool actually does, what effects it has, whether it's destructive, what permissions are needed, or what the expected behavior is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful, so the brevity is detrimental rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this is severely incomplete. The description fails to explain what 'redo' means in this context, what it operates on, or what the expected outcome is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for this situation is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Redo action' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'redo' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what action is being redone, what resource is affected, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'undo'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'undo' and various pattern/generation tools, there's no indication of when redo is appropriate versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 but fails completely. 'Reverse pattern' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies data in-place, what permissions might be required, or what side effects occur. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic operation name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While there's no wasted text, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded by necessity but fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (musical/pattern manipulation context), no annotations, no output schema, and a completely minimal description, this is severely incomplete. The description fails to explain what 'pattern' means in this context, what 'reverse' operation performs, what the result looks like, or how this differs from similar operations among the many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information (which isn't needed), it maintains the baseline appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reverse pattern' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'pattern' refers to (musical pattern, data pattern, etc.) or what 'reverse' operation actually performs. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'transpose' or 'stretch', it doesn't clarify how it differs from similar operations like 'undo' or 'generate_variation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or when other tools like 'undo', 'generate_variation', or 'ai_suggest_variations' might be more suitable. The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add effect to pattern' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether the effect is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the pattern after the effect is applied. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted verbiage. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it lacks necessary context that would make it truly helpful. It's front-loaded but too minimal to be considered excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pattern' is, what effects are available, how parameters are formatted, or what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions: 'effect' (required, effect name) and 'params' (effect parameters). The description 'Add effect to pattern' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it implies the tool applies an effect to a pattern, but doesn't clarify what 'pattern' refers to or provide examples of effect names or parameter formats. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add effect to pattern' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'add_effect'. It doesn't specify what kind of effect, what type of pattern, or what domain this operates in (audio, visual, etc.). While it includes a verb ('Add') and resource ('pattern'), it lacks specificity and doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'remove_effect' or 'apply_scale'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pattern), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'remove_effect' or 'ai_enhance_pattern'. There's no context about appropriate scenarios or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Generate drum pattern' implies a creation operation but reveals nothing about permissions, output format (e.g., audio file, MIDI data), side effects, or error handling, which is inadequate for a generative tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action. There is no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a generative tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what is generated, how it differs from similar tools, or what the user can expect, making it insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'style' as drum style, 'complexity' as a 0-1 number). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate drum pattern' restates the tool name 'generate_drums' with minimal elaboration, making it essentially tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of drum pattern is generated (e.g., MIDI, audio, notation) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'generate_pattern' or 'ai_generate_pattern', leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for pattern generation and analysis (e.g., 'generate_pattern', 'ai_generate_pattern', 'generate_fill'), the description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it misleadingly simplistic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only analysis, if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. The term 'analysis' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase ('FFT spectrum analysis'), which is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'analysis' and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., frequency data, visual output) or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'FFT spectrum analysis' restates the tool name 'analyze_spectrum' in technical jargon (FFT = Fast Fourier Transform), making it tautological rather than explanatory. It doesn't specify what resource is being analyzed (e.g., audio signal, data stream) or what the analysis produces, though it distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_rhythm' by focusing on spectrum rather than rhythm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'analyze', 'analyze_rhythm', 'ai_analyze_pattern'), the description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply scale to notes' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be needed, what the output looks like, or any side effects. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves when invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. Every word earns its place by attempting to convey the tool's function, even if inadequately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by parameters and sibling tools (e.g., music manipulation in a pattern-based system), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand what this tool does, how it differs from similar tools, or what to expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('scale' and 'root'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what valid scale names are, what format the root note should be in, or how these parameters interact. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Apply scale to notes' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'apply_scale'. It doesn't specify what 'apply' means operationally (e.g., does it transpose notes, generate notes based on scale, or filter notes?), nor does it clarify what 'notes' refers to (existing notes in a pattern, or generating new notes?). While it mentions the resource ('notes'), the verb 'apply' is too vague to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'transpose' or 'generate_scale'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for music generation and manipulation (e.g., 'transpose', 'generate_scale', 'generate_melody'), the agent has no information to decide when 'apply_scale' is appropriate versus these other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing output format, potential side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., if it creates new content or modifies existing). This is inadequate for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Generate chord progression', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but it earns full marks for brevity and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of music generation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., chord sequences, audio, notation) or how it interacts with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('key' and 'style'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate chord progression' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the action and resource but lacks details about what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'generate_pattern' or 'generate_bassline', making it vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for music generation (e.g., 'generate_melody', 'generate_bassline'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It offers no information on what the tool does beyond the name—no indication of output format, side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two words—with zero wasted text. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, though this comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place, making it structurally optimal for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a polyrhythm is in this context, what the output entails, or how parameters interact. For a generative tool in a music/pattern domain with many siblings, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('sounds' and 'patterns') documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond this, not explaining what constitutes valid sounds or patterns (e.g., file paths, instrument names, rhythm ratios). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate polyrhythm' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It lacks specificity about what resource or output is generated (e.g., audio, notation, pattern data) and how it differs from sibling tools like 'generate_pattern' or 'generate_euclidean'. This provides minimal guidance to an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for pattern generation (e.g., generate_pattern, generate_euclidean, generate_drums), the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Quantize to grid' implies a mutation operation (adjusting timing to a grid), but it doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a tool that likely modifies musical timing data, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While severely under-specified, what's present is structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a timing quantization operation (likely modifying musical patterns), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description fails to explain what gets quantized, how the quantization affects existing data, what the result looks like, or any musical context. For a tool among many music/pattern manipulation siblings, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single 'grid' parameter. The schema adequately describes the parameter as 'Grid size (e.g., "1/16")', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Quantize to grid' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'quantize' with minimal elaboration. It doesn't specify what resource or data is being quantized (e.g., musical notes, timing data, patterns) or provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'humanize' or 'analyze_rhythm'. While it implies a timing/grid-based operation, the purpose remains vague and under-specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'humanize' (which might do the opposite) or 'analyze_rhythm' (which might analyze rather than modify timing). The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'BPM detection' implies a read-only analysis function, but it doesn't specify what it detects from (e.g., audio, patterns), whether it's destructive, any rate limits, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'BPM detection', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is efficient and appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool detects BPM from, what it returns, or how it fits among sibling tools, leaving gaps in understanding its role and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'BPM detection' restates the tool name 'detect_tempo' in different words, making it tautological. While it indicates the general domain (tempo/BPM), it doesn't specify what resource or input it operates on or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analyze_rhythm' or 'set_tempo'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for analysis and tempo-related operations (e.g., 'analyze_rhythm', 'set_tempo'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Time stretch pattern' implies a mutation operation (changing timing), but it doesn't specify whether this is destructive to the original pattern, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details the output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as it lacks necessary context for effective tool selection and use, slightly reducing its utility despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a timing mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'pattern' is in this context, how the stretching affects other attributes (e.g., pitch), or what the tool returns. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'factor' parameter clearly documented as 'Stretch factor'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining typical factor ranges (e.g., >1 for slowing down, <1 for speeding up) or units. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Time stretch pattern' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'stretch' with minimal additional context. While it suggests the tool operates on patterns with time stretching, it lacks specificity about what resource is being stretched (e.g., audio, MIDI, or rhythmic patterns) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'quantize' or 'humanize' that also manipulate timing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts (e.g., for tempo adjustment without pitch change), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to choose between this and similar timing-related tools like 'set_tempo' or 'quantize'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add swing to pattern' implies a mutation operation that modifies an existing pattern, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects playback, or has side effects like altering timing or feel. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Add swing to pattern', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a musical tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'swing' entails, how it modifies the pattern, what the result looks like, or how it differs from other rhythm-related tools. For a mutation tool in a rich musical context, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'amount' parameter clearly documented as 'Swing amount (0-1)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what values like 0.5 represent musically or how swing interacts with the pattern. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add swing to pattern' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'add_swing' with minimal additional information. It specifies the action ('add') and target ('pattern') but lacks specificity about what 'swing' means in this musical context or how it differs from similar tools like 'humanize' or 'quantize' among the many siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'humanize', 'quantize', and 'generate_euclidean' that might relate to rhythm manipulation, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set BPM' implies a mutation (changing tempo), but the description doesn't reveal any behavioral traits—it doesn't state if this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, what happens to playback, or if there are side effects like affecting other parameters. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words ('Set BPM'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool affects (e.g., a current pattern or track), the expected behavior, or return values. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'bpm' parameter fully documented as 'Tempo in BPM'. The description 'Set BPM' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates the parameter's purpose without providing additional context like valid ranges, units, or effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set BPM' clearly indicates the action (set) and the target (BPM/tempo), but it's vague about the broader context—it doesn't specify what system or resource the BPM is being set for (e.g., a music track, sequencer, or audio engine). Compared to siblings like 'detect_tempo' or 'play', it distinguishes its purpose as a configuration action, but lacks specificity about the affected resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if a track must be loaded first), exclusions (e.g., not to use while playing), or related tools (e.g., 'detect_tempo' for reading BPM, 'play' for starting playback). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Load saved pattern' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the pattern doesn't exist, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., does it return the pattern data or just a confirmation?). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words: 'Load saved pattern'. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the core function, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'load' operation in a pattern-processing context with many sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'loading' entails (e.g., does it retrieve pattern data for editing, or activate it for playback?), nor does it address potential errors or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Pattern name'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. No additional semantic context is needed, so a score of 4 reflects adequate parameter understanding from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load saved pattern' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'load' with minimal context. While it indicates the action (load) and resource type (saved pattern), it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'pattern' in this domain or distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_pattern' or 'generate_pattern'. The purpose is vague and lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a pattern must be saved first), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_pattern' or 'save'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other pattern-related tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start playing pattern' implies an action that initiates playback, but it doesn't describe what happens (e.g., does it play from the beginning, loop, or require specific state?), potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely controls audio output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a playback tool in a musical context with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pattern' entails, how playback behaves (e.g., tempo, looping), or what the result is (e.g., audio output, status). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, though it could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start playing pattern' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'play' with minimal additional context. While it indicates the action (start playing) and the resource (pattern), it doesn't specify what 'pattern' refers to in this musical context or differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'pause' or 'stop'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a pattern must be loaded first), when not to use it (e.g., if already playing), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pause', 'stop', or 'set_tempo' in a playback workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('save') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing patterns, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. It mentions 'metadata' but doesn't clarify what that entails or how it affects the save operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, 'Save pattern with metadata', which is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be more structured by elaborating slightly to improve clarity without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (save implies write operation), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'name' has a description), and the description adds minimal value by implying 'metadata' includes 'tags', but it doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With two parameters and partial coverage, this meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Save pattern with metadata' states the action (save) and resource (pattern) but is vague about what constitutes 'metadata' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'write' or 'append'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the pattern's nature or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write', 'append', or 'generate_pattern'. The description implies saving with metadata, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write/mutation operation ('Write'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this overwrites existing content, requires specific editor state, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more informative. It earns a 4 for being concise, but loses a point for under-specification rather than true brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., pattern manipulation in an editor), no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the editor context, return values, error conditions, or how it integrates with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pattern' documented as 'Pattern code'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what constitutes a 'pattern' or provide examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write pattern to editor' states a verb ('Write') and resource ('pattern to editor'), but it's vague about what 'editor' refers to and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'append', 'insert', or 'replace'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the editor context or how this differs from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'append', 'insert', and 'replace' that might modify patterns in different ways, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this modifies the pattern in-place, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with other operations (e.g., undo/redo). The term 'append' implies mutation but lacks behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential action and target. There is no wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'current pattern' refers to, how the appended code integrates, what happens on success/failure, or return values. Given the rich sibling toolset for pattern manipulation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'code' documented as 'Code to append'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Append code to current pattern' clearly states the action (append) and target (current pattern), but is somewhat vague about what 'code' means in this musical context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert' or 'replace' that might modify patterns differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert', 'replace', or 'generate_pattern'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pattern) or contextual constraints for appending code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Generate drum fill', implying a creation action, but doesn't specify what is generated (e.g., audio, MIDI, text), whether it's read-only or mutative, or any side effects like rate limits or permissions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like clarity and guidelines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generative action with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a drum fill is, what the output entails, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'style' and 'bars' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of styles or bar ranges. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate drum fill' clearly states the verb (generate) and resource (drum fill), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'drum fill' entails in this context (e.g., musical pattern, audio file, notation) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_drums' or 'generate_pattern', leaving ambiguity about its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for music composition, practice), or exclusions, and it fails to reference similar sibling tools like 'generate_drums' or 'generate_pattern', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., MIDI, notes list), whether it's deterministic or random, performance implications, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a generation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of melody generation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how melodies are structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'scale', 'root', and 'length' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of scale names or constraints on length. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate melody from scale' states a clear purpose with a verb ('generate') and resource ('melody'), but it's vague about what constitutes a melody and how it differs from sibling tools like 'generate_pattern' or 'generate_bassline'. It doesn't specify if this generates random melodies, follows certain patterns, or outputs in a particular format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'generate_pattern' or 'generate_bassline'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read/write operation, what the output entails (e.g., list of notes, audio), or any constraints like rate limits or side effects, which is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially complex musical tool among many siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scale notes' are, how they're generated, or the return format, leaving significant ambiguity for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'root' and 'scale' are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for generation, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate scale notes' states a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('scale notes'), but it's vague about what exactly is generated (e.g., musical notes, patterns, sequences) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'apply_scale' or 'generate_pattern'. It's functional but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., musical composition), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many music-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create pattern variations' suggests a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies an existing pattern in memory, requires a pattern to be loaded, affects playback, or has side effects like saving changes. This leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'pattern' is in this context, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., 'get_pattern', 'save'), leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about usage and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'type' documented as 'Variation type (subtle/moderate/extreme/glitch/evolving)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what these types do or how they affect the pattern. Baseline is 3 since the schema provides adequate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create pattern variations' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of patterns (musical, visual, etc.) and what 'variations' entail. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like 'generate_pattern' (creates new) vs 'generate_variation' (modifies existing), but the distinction is not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ai_suggest_variations' or 'generate_pattern'. The description implies it's for modifying existing patterns, but this is not stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'human timing variation' but does not explain what this entails (e.g., whether it modifies existing data, requires specific inputs, has side effects, or how it interacts with other tools). This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('Add human timing variation') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving timing variation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it affects data, or its role among many sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'amount' documented as 'Humanization amount (0-1)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or effects of different values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add human timing variation' states a purpose but is vague about what resource it acts on (e.g., musical patterns, audio, or sequences). It uses a specific verb ('Add') but lacks clarity on the target, making it less distinguishable from siblings like 'quantize' or 'generate_variation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'quantize' (for timing correction) or 'generate_variation' (for broader changes). The description implies usage in timing contexts but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List saved patterns' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this returns all patterns or a subset, how results are formatted, or if there are any limitations like pagination. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of having many sibling tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, and differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'tag' parameter documented as 'Filter by tag'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention the parameter or provide additional context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List saved patterns' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('saved patterns'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_pattern' or 'load', which might also retrieve patterns, leaving some ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might retrieve or analyze patterns (e.g., 'get_pattern', 'load', 'analyze'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Replace' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't clarify if this is destructive (overwrites original), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. It lacks details on error handling, performance, or what 'pattern section' means in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Replace pattern section', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it efficient despite potential under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., pattern manipulation in a musical context), no annotations, no output schema, and vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'pattern section' is, the tool's behavior, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Text to replace' and 'Replacement text'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as examples, constraints, or how parameters interact with 'pattern sections'. Since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Replace pattern section' indicates the tool performs a replacement operation on pattern sections, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'pattern section' or differentiate this tool from other pattern manipulation siblings like 'transpose', 'reverse', or 'humanize', leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for pattern manipulation (e.g., 'transpose', 'reverse', 'humanize', 'quantize'), there's no indication of whether this is for text replacement in patterns, musical element substitution, or other contexts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions AI suggestions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens to the original pattern, authentication requirements, rate limits, or expected response format. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and clear schema documentation. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with key differentiators.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and parameters that control AI-based pattern modification, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'current pattern' refers to, what happens after enhancement, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The context signals show this is a mutation tool (implied by 'modify'), but the description lacks critical behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that parameters control the enhancement process. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'target_style' interacts with 'enhancement_type') or provide usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('enhance or modify') and resource ('current pattern') with the mechanism ('using AI suggestions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_generate_pattern' (creates new) and 'ai_suggest_variations' (specific enhancement type). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'pattern' in this context, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage when AI-based pattern enhancement is needed, it doesn't mention when to choose specific enhancement types or how it differs from siblings like 'generate_variation' or 'ai_suggest_variations'. The description provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions using 'DeepSeek AI' but doesn't explain key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., a pattern string or error handling). For an AI-based generation tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate a Strudel pattern from natural language description using DeepSeek AI.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, input type, and method.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an AI-based generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., a Strudel pattern string or error messages), behavioral aspects like rate limits or costs, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely involves external AI services, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (prompt, style, key, bpm) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a Strudel pattern from natural language description using DeepSeek AI.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('Strudel pattern'), and method ('using DeepSeek AI'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_pattern' or 'ai_enhance_pattern,' which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'generate_pattern' (which might generate patterns without AI) or 'ai_enhance_pattern' (which might modify existing patterns), leaving the agent without context for selection. Usage is implied only through the tool's name and description, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates variations but does not explain what 'AI-suggested' entails (e.g., based on machine learning models), potential limitations, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of AI-based generation and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'variations' entail, how they are generated, or what the output looks like, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'count' parameter documented as 'Number of variations to generate (default: 3, max: 5)'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'variations' are or how they are generated. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'AI-suggested variations of the current pattern', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_variation' or 'ai_generate_pattern', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific AI-suggested variation tool versus others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'generate_variation' or 'ai_generate_pattern', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing pattern. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear in the broader toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, what exactly gets cleared (e.g., all content, only visible items), or any side effects (e.g., stopping playback). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Clear the editor')—just three words—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, which is ideal for a simple tool. Every sentence (here, a single phrase) earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails, the result (e.g., empty editor, confirmation message), or error conditions. For a destructive operation, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear the editor' states a specific action ('Clear') and target ('the editor'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'editor' refers to or what gets cleared (e.g., content, selections, history), making it somewhat vague. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'undo' or 'init' that might also reset state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if an editor must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot clear while playing), or related tools like 'undo' for reversal or 'init' for reinitialization. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('generate') without explaining what that entails—e.g., whether it creates audio, notation, or data; if it's idempotent; what permissions or resources are needed; or what happens on failure. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single three-word phrase—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by clearly stating the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of generating a musical rhythm and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Euclidean rhythm is, what the output format is (e.g., MIDI, audio, pattern data), or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('hits', 'steps', 'sound') with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters interact to create a Euclidean rhythm, what typical values are, or what the 'sound' parameter affects. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a Euclidean rhythm, which is a specific musical concept. It uses the verb 'generate' with the resource 'Euclidean rhythm', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_pattern', 'generate_drums', or 'generate_polyrhythm', which could also produce rhythmic patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for pattern generation (e.g., 'generate_pattern', 'generate_drums', 'generate_polyrhythm'), there's no indication of what makes Euclidean rhythms unique or when they're preferred. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'generate' implies creation, it doesn't specify what 'complete pattern' means in terms of output format, whether it's a one-time generation or iterative, what happens with the generated pattern (saved, played, returned), or any constraints like computational requirements. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words ('Generate complete pattern from style'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place by establishing the tool's fundamental purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of pattern generation, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'complete pattern', how the output is structured or returned, or how this differs from other generation tools. For a creative generation tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (style, key, bpm) with clear descriptions. The description mentions 'style' but doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides about how these parameters influence pattern generation. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Generate complete pattern from style', specifying the verb 'generate' and the resource 'complete pattern'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_bassline' or 'generate_drums' by indicating it creates a full pattern rather than specific components. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ai_generate_pattern' or other pattern-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'generate_bassline', 'generate_drums', 'ai_generate_pattern', and 'get_pattern', there's no indication of when this specific pattern generation tool is appropriate versus those other options. The description simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, what 'current' means (e.g., in-memory vs. saved), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 params), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pattern code' returns (e.g., format, content) or behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here, warranting a baseline 4 for matching the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get current pattern code' states the action (get) and resource (pattern code), but is vague about what 'pattern code' means in this music/audio context and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'generate_pattern' or 'validate_pattern_runtime'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_pattern' or 'analyze'. The description implies retrieval of existing data, but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Insert code at specific line' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it shifts existing lines, handles invalid positions, requires file/session context, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('position' as 'Line number' and 'code' as 'Code to insert') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Insert code at specific line' clearly states the verb ('insert') and resource ('code'), with the specific action of inserting at a line number. It distinguishes from siblings like 'append' (which adds to end) or 'replace' (which overwrites), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append', 'replace', or 'write'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if stopping is immediate, reversible, affects other operations, or has side effects (e.g., resets playback position). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core action, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks context about what playback is stopped, behavioral traits, or usage guidelines, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop playback' clearly indicates the action (stop) and target (playback), but it doesn't specify what is being stopped or distinguish this tool from similar tools like 'pause' in the sibling list. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the playback context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pause' or 'clear' from the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('transpose') but doesn't describe what gets transposed (e.g., current pattern, loaded data), whether it's destructive or read-only, or any side effects like rate limits or permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Transpose notes') and specifies the mechanism ('by semitones') directly. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'notes' refers to, the context of operation (e.g., modifies current pattern), and behavioral traits like safety or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters musical data, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'semitones' fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that semitones are used for transposition, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Transpose notes by semitones' clearly states the action (transpose) and target (notes) with a specific mechanism (by semitones). It distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_scale' or 'generate_scale' by focusing on pitch shifting rather than scale application or generation. However, it doesn't specify what 'notes' refers to (e.g., musical notes in a pattern or sequence), leaving some ambiguity compared to more specific sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing notes to transpose), exclusions (e.g., not for tempo changes), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'apply_scale' for key-based adjustments. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether undo is reversible, if it affects all changes or only specific ones, potential side effects, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if no action to undo).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Undo last action'—three words that directly convey the core function. It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an undo operation (which can have nuanced behavior) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'last action' means, the scope of undo, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Undo last action' states the tool's function but is vague about what constitutes an 'action' in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'redo' by indicating reversal, but doesn't specify the domain (e.g., pattern editing, audio processing) or resource affected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a prior action to undo), limitations (e.g., only works in certain modes), or relationships with siblings like 'redo' for reversing the undo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'runtime error checking' and 'monitors Strudel console for errors', which hints at a read-only diagnostic operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error formats, or what constitutes a validation failure. This is insufficient for a tool with potential runtime implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Validate pattern with runtime error checking') and adds necessary context ('monitors Strudel console for errors'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of runtime validation and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, error details), how errors are reported, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a Strudel context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters ('pattern' and 'waitMs'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying validation involves error monitoring, which doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate pattern with runtime error checking' specifies the verb (validate) and resource (pattern), with additional context about monitoring the Strudel console for errors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ai_analyze_pattern' or 'analyze', which might have overlapping validation aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to pattern analysis and generation (e.g., 'ai_analyze_pattern', 'analyze'), there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this validation tool, leaving the agent to guess based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'AI analysis' but doesn't disclose traits like processing time, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'improvement suggestions' entail. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity and no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get AI analysis of the pattern') and lists key components. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (AI-based analysis with multiple outputs like style detection and suggestions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids redundancy. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get AI analysis') and resources ('pattern'), detailing what it analyzes (style detection, complexity assessment, improvement suggestions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_explain_pattern' (likely explanation-focused) and 'analyze' (generic), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for pattern analysis, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'analyze' or 'ai_explain_pattern', leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool 'gets' an explanation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires AI processing time, has rate limits, or what 'current pattern' refers to in context. This leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or how it integrates with siblings like 'ai_analyze_pattern'. For an AI tool in a complex server, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it could hint at implicit context like 'current pattern' being inferred from state. Baseline is 4 for zero params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get an AI-generated explanation') and the target ('what the current pattern does'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_analyze_pattern' or 'ai_enhance_pattern', which might also involve AI analysis of patterns, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'ai_analyze_pattern' or 'analyze', which could offer similar insights. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get current memory usage statistics' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what statistics are returned (RAM usage, heap, stack, etc.), whether it's real-time or cached data, or if there are any side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple monitoring tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the memory statistics are returned in, what metrics are included, or how this tool fits into the broader music processing context indicated by all sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about the return value format and practical application.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current memory usage statistics', making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are all music/audio processing related, making this tool stand out as a system monitoring utility rather than a music tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given that all sibling tools are music/audio processing functions, there's no indication of whether this should be used for system diagnostics, performance monitoring, or troubleshooting during music processing workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Pause playback' implies a state-changing action but doesn't specify if it requires active playback, what happens to playback state, or if it's reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Pause playback') with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) but lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what 'pause' entails in this context, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'play', 'stop'). For a state-changing tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pause playback' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('pause') and resource ('playback'), making its purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop' or 'play', which might have related functionality in a media playback context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop' or 'play' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback) or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, has side effects, rate limits, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase 'Get performance metrics and bottlenecks' that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of it contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns performance data. It doesn't explain what metrics or bottlenecks are included, the format of the output, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get performance metrics and bottlenecks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('performance metrics and bottlenecks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_usage' or 'analyze', which might also relate to performance aspects, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'memory_usage' and 'analyze' that could overlap in performance-related contexts, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking 'availability and configuration' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'available' means (e.g., online status, API keys), response format, error conditions, or rate limits. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what 'available and configured' entails, response expectations, or integration with sibling AI tools. For a diagnostic tool, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, avoiding redundancy with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking availability and configuration of DeepSeek AI features, using specific verbs ('check', 'available', 'configured'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ai_test_connection' or 'ai_analyze_pattern', which appear related to AI functionality but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'ai_test_connection' that might serve similar diagnostic purposes. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Initialize' implies a setup or preparation action, but it doesn't specify what initialization entails (e.g., loading libraries, setting up audio context, resetting state), whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with siblings. For a potentially state-changing initialization tool, more context would be helpful, but it meets the bare minimum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to explain beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Initialize Strudel in browser' clearly states the action (initialize) and target (Strudel in browser), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'load' or 'start' which might have overlapping initialization concepts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether it should be called first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'load' or 'play' that might handle initialization differently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's diagnostic purpose and simple request behavior, but lacks details on what constitutes a 'simple request,' expected response format, error handling, or any rate limits. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses operational specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Test DeepSeek API connection') and immediately provides usage context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a diagnostic utility. It covers purpose and usage context well, but could benefit from mentioning expected output format or success/failure indicators to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information (as none exist), which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no compensation is needed for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('test') and resource ('DeepSeek API connection'), with explicit purpose ('diagnose connection issues'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are music/pattern-related, by focusing on API connectivity testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to diagnose connection issues.' It implies when not to use it (for actual music/pattern operations) by contrasting with sibling tools, and provides clear context for troubleshooting scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![filopastry MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/youwenshao/filopastry/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/youwenshao/filopastry)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![filopastry MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/youwenshao/filopastry/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/youwenshao/filopastry)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/youwenshao/filopastry'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server