detect_key

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.