THIRI Chord Intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, aligning with the non-destructive parse operation. The description adds value by stating the optional key parameter and the specific output components, but does not cover error handling or input constraints beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action and outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main outputs but lacks specifics on return format, accepted chord syntax, and prerequisites. Given the complexity of chord parsing and the absence of an output schema, more detail is needed for completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'chord' and 'key' but provides no details on formats, examples, or types. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already provides (string types).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'parse' and the resource 'chord', listing the output components (root, quality, intervals, roman numeral, function). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_voicing and reharmonize, which are generative rather than analytical.

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 implies usage for chord analysis but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide conditions for when to use this tool versus others. The mention of 'with a key' hints at an optional condition but lacks definitive guidance.

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

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read/generation operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that audio rendering remains on a local endpoint (thiri-conductor-mcp / POST /v2/render), implying the tool returns data but does not perform the actual audio synthesis internally. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 compact, two sentences long, and front-loads the core purpose and return outputs. The second sentence adds a precise implementation detail about the external rendering endpoint, which is valuable for an agent to understand dependencies. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter descriptions. The description covers the main purpose, the return payload (tempo/groove, 4 lanes, lead sheet, base64 MIDI), and the external render behavior. However, it lacks explicit definition of how 'durationSec' behaves or how the output is structured, which would improve completeness. Given the annotation coverage and the straightforward nature of the parameters, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 schema has zero description coverage for parameters. The description gives partial meaning to 'prompt' by calling it a 'natural-language prompt', but it does not explain the optional 'durationSec' parameter at all. Since there are only two parameters, this substantial gap in parameter documentation is poorly compensated for by the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Arrange a 4-piece band from a natural-language prompt.' This uses a specific verb ('Arrange'), a specific resource ('a 4-piece band'), and outlines the return payload (tempo/groove, note lanes, lead sheet, base64 MIDI). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling chord-generation tools by focusing on full-band arrangement rather than chord analysis or voicing.

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 implies usage for creating a band arrangement from natural-language prompts, but does not explicitly indicate when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The sibling context (chord-focused tools) helps suggest differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by revealing non-obvious behavior: 9/b9/#9 replace the root, #11/13/b13 replace the 5th, and the 3rd/7th remain untouched. This 'seat substitution, not stacking' rule lets an agent predict the tool's output logic without running it.

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 two dense sentences with no filler: it front-loads the purpose, then packs the substitution algorithm and parameter behaviors into compact, readable phrases. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a six-parameter tool with no output schema, no enums, and 0% schema description coverage. The description leaves out the output format, the meaning of 'style', 'octave', and 'keyContext', and any failure or edge-case behavior, so an agent is not fully equipped to call it correctly in all cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify 'voices' (5 promotes the implied 9) and 'previousNotes' (for a voice-leading score), and it gives meaning to 'chord' via tension symbols. However, 'style', 'octave', and 'keyContext' remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 opening phrase 'Instrument-ready voicing in a style' clearly identifies the deliverable and the role of the style parameter. The rest of the description explains what the tool does with tension symbols, which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord or reharmonize, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the listed sibling tools. The only usage direction is the conditional 'Pass previousNotes for a voice-leading score,' which is parameter-level advice, not tool-selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by enumerating specific reharmonization techniques (tritone_sub, ii_v_insertion, etc.), informing the agent about the transformations applied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence followed by a colon-separated list, which is concise and front-loaded. It packs essential information efficiently, though a more structured format could improve readability.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and the need to understand input/output formats, the description is insufficient. It omits what the tool returns, how to format the progression, and the role of the key parameter.

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?

Schema has zero description coverage for the three parameters. The description partially compensates by listing possible values for 'technique', but does not explain 'key' or the format of 'progression' items, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reharmonize' and identifies the resource as 'a progression'. It explicitly lists reharmonization techniques, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools (analyze_chord, generate_voicing, resolve_chord) which focus on different aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings. The list of techniques implies some context but fails to provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is easy to read, 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.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of chord resolution (music theory), the description lacks key context: no output schema, no parameter format guidance, and no examples. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge of chord notation.

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?

There is one required parameter 'chord' of type string, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the expected format (e.g., 'C major', 'Cmaj7', or a chord symbol syntax). This omission leaves agents uncertain how to specify the chord, reducing usability.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'chord', and lists specific outputs (spelled notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord (likely analysis without such outputs) and generate_voicing/reharmonize (which produce different results).

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 implies using this tool to get detailed chord information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_chord, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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