stretch

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.