suno_get_midi

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the conversion to MIDI and the return information but does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or error conditions. For a read-like operation, the transparency is adequate but not excellent.

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 concise with four short paragraphs including bullet points. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has no unnecessary words.

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?

With an output schema present (from context signals), the description need not detail return values. It mentions 'Returns: Task ID and MIDI data information,' which is sufficient. For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers all essential aspects.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear.

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 purpose: to get MIDI data from a generated song, explaining the conversion to MIDI format and its use in DAWs. It distinguishes this from sibling tools that deal with other aspects like generating music or stems.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when:' bullet points provide clear context for usage scenarios (editing melody, need note-level data, recreating with different instruments). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given the sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient.

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