suno_get_midi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type ('Task ID and MIDI data information'), but does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, how long it might take, or any side effects. The callback_url parameter suggests async behavior, but this is not explained.

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 structured with a one-liner, an explanatory paragraph, a bullet list for usage, and a returns line. It is relatively concise, but the explanatory paragraph could be merged with the usage list. Every sentence earns its place, but some redundancy exists (e.g., converting to MIDI for DAWs is stated twice).

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 low complexity (2 params, no enums, simple return) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, and return type. Minor gaps include lack of error/async handling details, but for a retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'song ID' for audio_id and 'MIDI data information' for the return, but does not meaningfully extend understanding beyond the schema's 'The song ID' and 'Webhook callback URL for asynchronous notifications.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get MIDI data extracted from a generated song.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'MIDI data' are specific. Among 32 sibling tools, none duplicate this exact function (e.g., suno_get_wav, suno_get_mp4 are different formats), so it distinguishes well.

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 'Use this when:' section provides three explicit scenarios (editing melody in DAW, need note-level data, recreate with different instruments). It gives clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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