detect_tempo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.