resolve_chord

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's primary transparency contribution is listing the returned data types (note names, frequencies, MIDI numbers, scales). This adds useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 that efficiently enumerates four distinct output categories. Every word contributes value, no repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately lists the main return values. However, it could be more complete by noting error handling or format details. Still, for a simple lookup tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 single parameter 'chord' has 100% schema description coverage with examples. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter syntax or format beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' and identifies the resource as a chord symbol. It clearly lists the outputs (note names, frequencies, MIDI numbers, scales), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_chord (analysis) and generate_voicing (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 this tool is for retrieving detailed chord data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings (e.g., analyze_chord, reharmonize). No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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