FL Studio 2025 AI Bridge
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.3.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool falls into a clear domain (e.g., arrangement, audio, channel, mixer, pattern, piano_roll, playlist, plugin, project, transport, UI, voice, gen) with distinct purposes. Even overlapping areas like audio analysis vs transcription are separated by target output (analysis data vs piano roll notes). The drum pattern tools differentiate step sequencer vs piano roll output via name and description.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent snake_case convention with a domain prefix (e.g., arrangement_, audio_, channel_, mixer_) and a descriptive action (e.g., _list, _select, _set_volume). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles. The naming pattern is predictable and aids discoverability.
Tool Count4/5157 tools is high, but FL Studio is a complex DAW with many components (arrangement, mixing, patterns, plugins, playback, generative features, voice input). The count reflects the breadth of the server's scope. While some tools could be merged (e.g., multiple transport toggles), the granularity helps agents perform fine-grained actions. Slightly over the ideal 3-15 range for a focused server, but reasonable for full DAW control.
Completeness4/5The toolset covers almost every major FL Studio workflow: arrangement switching, audio analysis/transcription, automation recording (channels, mixer, plugins, tempo), channel/mixer manipulation, pattern/clip management, piano roll editing, plugin control, project lifecycle, transport, UI, voice input, and generative music. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mixer EQ automation, no CC event editing), but the surface is extensive enough for most music production tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 157 of 157 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior such as side effects, read/write nature, or dependencies. It only states 'Plugin display name,' which reveals nothing about how the tool operates or its impact on the system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is not concise; it is under-specified and lacks essential information. A proper description would use this space to clarify purpose and parameters, not repeat the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the very low schema coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to provide even basic information about the tool's function, parameters, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention index, slot, or location, leaving their meanings entirely ambiguous. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Plugin display name' is a tautology with the tool name and does not specify whether the tool gets or sets the name. It lacks a verb and fails to convey the action or resource, making it unclear what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 the many sibling plugin-related tools (e.g., plugin_find_param, plugin_get_param). No context on prerequisites or alternatives is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description is under-specified and lacks structure; it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name, and it omits necessary details about parameters and return values.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of schema descriptions, annotations, and output schema, the description is critically incomplete, failing to clarify what the tool returns or how the parameter affects behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, include_empty, has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not explained in the tool description, leaving its purpose entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List of all mixer tracks', which is a clear verb-resource combination, but it is vague about what exactly is listed (names, IDs, etc.) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like mixer_track_info or mixer_count.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as mixer_count or mixer_track_info, leaving the agent to infer its usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether advancing wraps around, what happens if no next preset exists, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), but under-specification makes it unhelpful. Conciseness at the cost of missing critical information is not a virtue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the tool description is completely inadequate. It does not explain required parameters, expected behavior, or return values, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (index, slot, location) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of their meaning or effect. The agent has no guidance on how to fill them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Advance to the next preset.' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'plugin_next_preset', repeating the same concept without adding specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'plugin_prev_preset' beyond the direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'plugin_prev_preset' or 'plugin_set_preset'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'record pan automation' without disclosing side effects, such as whether existing automation is overwritten, required channel state, or any other operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential information. It is not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity; more detail is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete. Without output schema or annotations, it fails to explain the parameters, return value, or any operational context. The agent cannot use this tool correctly based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain the 'points' parameter at all. The agent has no idea what format or values are expected for the array of objects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (record) and the resource (pan automation on a channel). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like automation_record_channel_volume by specifying 'pan' instead of 'volume'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create a bassline', implying mutation, but gives no details on side effects (e.g., whether it clears existing notes, modifies channel data, or requires specific setup). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it lacks important information. It states the purpose concisely, which earns its place, but the scope is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine how to use this tool correctly or what to expect without much inference. The description fails to provide adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references 'various styles' and 'chord progression root', which hint at progression and pattern_style but do not clarify usage, defaults, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create a bassline') and the resource ('bassline that follows a chord progression root'), which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gen_emit_melody or gen_emit_arpeggio by specifying bassline and referencing chord progression root.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gen_emit_arpeggio or gen_emit_melody. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose return type, side effects, or any behavioral traits. The description is essentially just the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short at two words, but under-specified. Lacks critical information to be usefully concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the return value or scope. It fails to provide sufficient context for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. However, the description adds no value beyond the schema or name; it doesn't explain what the count represents or return format. Adequate but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Playlist track count' clearly indicates the tool returns a count related to playlist tracks. It is distinct from siblings like playlist_all_tracks or playlist_track_info. However, it doesn't specify which playlist or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. No context provided about prerequisites or typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic action. No annotations exist to compensate. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the parameter is invalid, or the return type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but lacks structure and important details. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which is not ideal for a tool with four parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and four parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's context (e.g., plugin indexing, parameter numbering) or the expected return value, making it insufficient for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameter meanings. It does not mention 'index', 'param', 'slot', or 'location', leaving the agent without context for how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get value of a single parameter' clearly states the action (get) and resource (parameter value). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plugin_set_param' (write) and 'plugin_params' (multiple values), but lacks explicit differentiation or context about which plugin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'plugin_params' for all parameters, 'plugin_find_param' for discovery). No prerequisites or context (e.g., plugin must be valid or selected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only reveals toggle behavior when 'solo' is null. It does not disclose what soloing does, side effects, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, but may be too terse for clarity. Front-loaded with action verb, but no additional structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of index, what solo does, or any return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the toggle behavior of the 'solo' parameter but does not explain the 'index' parameter beyond its name. Schema has 0% description coverage, so more detail needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Solo / unsolo / toggle (None = toggle)' clearly indicates the action (solo/unsolo/toggle) and the resource is implied by the tool name 'channel_solo'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mixer_solo' by targeting channels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mixer_solo' or 'playlist_solo_track'. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the minimal action. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden, but it does not mention side effects, UI changes, or whether it deselects other tracks. This is insufficient for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but not overly so for a simple tool. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it's only adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'focus/select' entails or how the tool integrates with other mixer operations. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'track' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no help understanding what values are valid (e.g., 1-based indexing, range). The title only says 'Track', which adds no meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (focus/select) and the resource (mixer track), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling selection tools like channel_select, pattern_select, or arrangement_select, but the resource is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mixer_track_info or mixer_arm. There is no explanation of prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Add a chord' without specifying effects on existing notes, pattern selection, undo behavior, or whether the chord is placed in the current pattern.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is underspecified and lacks essential detail, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain prerequisite pattern selection, behavior across multiple parameters, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (midi_notes, time_bars, duration_bars, velocity, channel, pattern). Agent cannot infer their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'chord' at a given bar position, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like piano_roll_add_notes or piano_roll_add_arpeggio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like piano_roll_add_notes; no prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'snap' implying modification, but doesn't clarify if it's destructive, what happens to original positions, or if it affects all notes or only selected ones.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is too terse and fails to earn its place—it omits essential details, forcing agents to guess or rely on external knowledge. Conciseness without completeness is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 4 undocumented parameters, this single-sentence description is grossly incomplete. Agents cannot safely or effectively use this tool based solely on the definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description explains zero parameters. Agents cannot infer the meaning of grid_bars, strength, channel, or pattern from the description, leaving them blind to crucial configuration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Snap existing notes to a grid' clearly indicates the tool quantizes notes. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., piano roll notes) and the meaning of 'grid'. It distinguishes from siblings like piano_roll_humanize.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like channel_quick_quantize, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must select notes first). Agents lack context for proper invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Record volume automation', which implies a write operation, but does not explain whether it replaces existing automation, appends points, or any prerequisites (e.g., track existence). The agent lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The tool description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not optimally structured; front-loading the purpose is good, but critical information is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain the points format, the effect of recording, or any side effects. This is inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no detail about the parameters. The 'track' parameter is indirectly mentioned as 'mixer track', but the 'points' parameter is completely unexplained. The agent cannot know the required structure (e.g., time-value pairs) from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Record' and resource 'volume automation on a mixer track'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like automation_record_channel_volume by specifying 'mixer track', though the name already indicates this. The purpose is clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as automation_record_channel_volume or automation_record_plugin_param. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, performance, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Overly terse. While it is concise, it lacks necessary detail and structure, failing to add value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no parameter documentation. Does not describe return format or what 'MIDI notes' entails (list, range, etc.).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description does not explain any parameters. Only names are given; no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns MIDI notes for a scale run. Distinguishes from sibling gen_chord_notes and gen_list_scales, but 'scale run' could be slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present; description only says 'set pattern length' with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, edge cases, or what happens to existing pattern data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence, but overly terse; no structure or additional context beyond the minimal function statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with zero documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters (index, bars) and the description does not explain them at all, leaving the agent uninformed about their meaning or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'set' and resource 'pattern length in bars', but does not differentiate from sibling pattern tools (e.g., pattern_create, pattern_clone).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pattern_length or other pattern setters. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is destructive, modifies the piano roll, or requires any permissions. The minimal description leaves the agent unaware of potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, but conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the key idea but lacks necessary detail. It could be restructured to include more information without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the 'notes' array, what happens after deletion, or how the tool fits with sibling operations. More context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'midi, time_bars' but does not explain the structure of the 'notes' array parameter or the optional 'channel' and 'pattern' parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Delete notes by {midi, time_bars} match', indicating the action and matching criteria. However, it is ambiguous about how the match works and does not distinguish from sibling tools like piano_roll_clear or piano_roll_duplicate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete specific notes versus clearing all notes or duplicating. There is no mention of prerequisites or excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'copy', leaving unclear whether existing notes at the destination are overwritten or merged. It does not mention undo behavior, permissions, or effects on the current pattern.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified. It does not earn its place as it fails to provide sufficient guidance for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain expected outcomes, parameter roles, or potential side effects, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The five parameters (source_time_bars, length_bars, dest_time_bars, channel, pattern) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Copy' and resource 'time-range of notes to another location', making the basic action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like piano_roll_add_notes or piano_roll_clear, relying on the name for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., piano_roll_add_notes, piano_roll_quantize). No prerequisites or context are mentioned, such as the need for an active piano roll or target channel/pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List of all playlist tracks,' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or describe any side effects. The lack of clarity on whether it reads from state or causes changes is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. While it avoids fluff, it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be restructured to include parameter explanation while remaining efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'playlist tracks' are and what the output looks like. The presence of sibling tools like playlist_list_clips and playlist_track_info suggests a need for clearer differentiation, which is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional boolean parameter 'include_empty' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent without meaning beyond the schema's minimal title and type. This is a critical omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'playlist tracks', making the tool's primary function understandable. However, it could be more specific about what 'tracks' refers to (e.g., track names or patterns) to fully distinguish from sibling tools like playlist_list_clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like playlist_track_info. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors such as immediate effect, toggling behavior when 'muted' is null, error conditions, or undo behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from additional structure to cover parameter behavior and usage context without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and lack of parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for either parameter. The 'track' parameter is not defined (e.g., indexing), and the 'muted' parameter's behavior for null/true/false is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is clear: it mutes/unmutes a playlist track. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like playlist_solo_track or channel_mute, and it lacks detail on whether it toggles or sets a specific state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mixer_mute, channel_mute). The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behaviors: whether soloing toggles, unsolos others, or affects playback. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but it fails to be informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's effect and return value. It is incomplete for a simple but specific action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description offers no explanation of the 'track' or 'solo' parameters. The agent must infer meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Solo a playlist track' clearly indicates the verb (solo) and the resource (playlist track), distinguishing it from similar tools like channel_solo or mixer_solo. However, it does not elaborate on what 'solo' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as playlist_mute_track or channel_solo. The agent has no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or behavior for invalid track indices. With no annotations, the description should cover these aspects, but it only lists attributes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but lacks structure such as output format or usage examples. It fits in one sentence, but its brevity omits important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the function returns. It only lists attributes without specifying return format (e.g., dictionary, JSON). No info on edge cases or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the 'track' parameter beyond its name. It does not specify whether it's an index, ID, or 0-based indexing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides info on a playlist track, listing specific attributes (name, color, mute, solo, height, group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like playlist_track_count or playlist_all_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or mention other tools for related tasks like modifying track settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Return number' implying a read-only operation, but it does not confirm the absence of side effects, required permissions, or clarify what 'automatable' means. For a read operation, this is minimally transparent, earning a low score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks key details. It is not front-loaded with critical information; instead, it is overly minimal. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices necessary context, making it only moderately effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the plugin, what 'automatable' means, or what the return value looks like. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about the three input parameters (index, slot, location). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain how these parameters identify a plugin or affect the output, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool returns the number of automatable parameters, which is a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly mention that it pertains to a specific plugin (implied by the tool name), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like plugin_params which might list parameter details. Thus, it is clear but lacks full specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 compared to alternatives such as plugin_params or plugin_find_param. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., audio changes, error behavior on invalid index), whether the operation is reversible, or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and behavior, making it under-informative for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the parameter roles, default behaviors for slot and location, or what 'load preset' entails in terms of side effects or system state changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters (index, preset, slot, location) with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no details about what each parameter controls, the meaning of slot and location, or the valid range for index. The agent must infer entirely from names and schema defaults, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Load preset by numeric index', which conveys the verb (load) and resource (preset) with a qualifier (by index). Among sibling tools like plugin_next_preset and plugin_prev_preset, the purpose is distinct, though not explicitly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are given. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin_next_preset for cycling or plugin_prev_preset, nor does it provide any context for when loading a preset by index is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided (readOnly, destructive, etc.), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('route') without mentioning side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing routing? Is it reversible? Does it require a specific audio driver?). It also fails to state whether the operation is instantaneous or has latency implications. This is a severe omission for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, which is highly concise. It front-loads the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter clarification without losing conciseness. The extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but overall the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'mixer_route' or 'link_to_channel', nor does it explain the relationship between channels and mixer insert tracks. The agent lacks sufficient context to know when routing a channel to a mixer insert is appropriate versus other routing operations. The description fails to achieve completeness even for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter names 'index' and 'mixer_track' are the only clues. The description uses the same words ('channel' and 'mixer insert track') but does not clarify indexing (0-based or 1-based), ranges, valid values, or whether 'mixer_track' refers to the track index or a specific insert slot. The description adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route a channel to a given mixer insert track' uses a specific verb ('route') and identifies the primary resource (channel) and destination (mixer insert track). It clearly states the tool's action and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mixer_route', which also involves routing, albeit between mixer tracks. The lack of sibling differentiation prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. For example, it does not contrast with 'mixer_route' (which routes between mixer tracks) or 'channel_set_volume' (which adjusts volume). It offers no use-case scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states action, no disclosure of behavior like what happens if no previous preset, side effects, or required plugin selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, highly concise. No wasted words, but lacks structure that could aid comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. Extremely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain any of the three parameters (index, slot, location). Agent must guess their meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Go back to the previous preset' uses a specific verb 'go back' and resource 'preset', clearly indicating navigation. It distinguishes from sibling 'plugin_next_preset' which goes forward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plugin_next_preset' or 'plugin_set_preset'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., irreversible modifications), prerequisites (e.g., notes must exist), or if it affects all channels or only the indexed one.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but omits critical details, making it borderline under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should cover what happens after quantizing, any return value, or confirmation of completion. It does not, leaving the tool's full behavior unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'index' has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'index' refers to (channel index? pattern index?), leaving its meaning ambiguous for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Quantize the channel's notes in the current pattern' clearly identifies the action (quantize) and the resource (channel's notes) but does not define 'quantize' or differentiate from sibling tool 'piano_roll_quantize', which might confuse agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., piano_roll_quantize), nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description should reveal behaviors. It does not mention that clear_first defaults to true, implying destructive writes. It omits details on voicing, chord interpretation, or side effects like channel selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but insufficient. It could include a second sentence summarizing key parameters without becoming verbose. The structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the progression is built, what musical rules apply, or what the AI can expect in return. The agent has no guidance on parameter effects or usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds zero parameter intent. It does not explain what 'progression', 'root', 'scale', 'chord_length_bars', 'octave_shift', 'pattern', or 'clear_first' mean or how they affect output. The description is completely silent on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (write), the resource (chord progression), and the target (channel's piano roll). It distinguishes well from siblings like gen_emit_arpeggio or piano_roll_add_chord.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as piano_roll_add_chord, gen_chord_notes, or other gen_emit_* tools. The description assumes the agent will infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions 'random melody' and scale constraint but does not disclose that it overwrites existing notes (clear_first parameter) or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 16 words, concise but missing structure. Does not front-load critical info like 'channel' requirement. Every word is earned but not enough coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. Does not explain behavior of 'pattern', 'seed', or 'clear_first'. No mention of return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds no parameter details beyond names and types. Does not explain 'seed', 'pattern', 'clear_first', or how 'root' and 'scale' combine to define the scale.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate', resource 'melody', and output 'write it to the piano roll'. It specifies 'stays within the given scale' which differentiates from other gen_emit tools like bassline or arpeggio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like gen_emit_bassline. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., channel must exist). No exclusions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'arm track for recording' without explaining toggling behavior, side effects, or required track existence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameter descriptions and behavioral details, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but provides no information about the 'track' or 'armed' parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action 'Arm track for recording', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like mixer_mute or mixer_solo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if a channel is already linked, side effects, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence plus mode syntax. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks essential context such as behavioral details, distinctions from sibling tools, and expected side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the 'mode' parameter (replace|add), but does not explain 'channel' or 'track' beyond the schema's type constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource ('Link a channel to a mixer track'). It also specifies mode options, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like channel_route_to_mixer or mixer_route.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides mode syntax but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for its usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it adds to or replaces existing notes), required permissions, or scope of changes. It only states it arpeggiates a chord, which is too vague for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structural elements like front-loading key information. While not verbose, it omits essential details that would make it more helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., active pattern), return behavior, or any operational context, making it inadequate for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. With 9 parameters (including enums like direction and defaults), the description fails to explain any parameter's meaning or effect, leaving the agent unable to use parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Arpeggiate a chord into sequential notes' clearly states the verb (arpeggiate) and resource (a chord). It distinguishes from siblings like piano_roll_add_chord (adds chord simultaneously) and piano_roll_add_notes (adds arbitrary notes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like gen_emit_arpeggio, piano_roll_humanize, or piano_roll_quantize. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Remove every note' implying destruction, but lacks details on undo behavior, required permissions, or side effects. The minimal information does not fully inform the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence—but front-loads the action. It is appropriately short, yet could benefit from structure like bullet points or parameter hints. Conciseness is good, but not optimal for usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which piano roll is affected (channel/pattern), default behavior, or return values. An agent lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'channel' implicitly. The 'pattern' parameter is not explained. The description adds little beyond the schema field titles, failing to clarify parameter meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and resource 'every note in the (channel's) piano roll.' It effectively conveys the core action of clearing all notes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'piano_roll_delete_notes,' but the function is distinct enough for an agent to infer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the rename action without disclosing side effects, input validation limits, or UI impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is too brief and underspecified; it omits critical details needed for correct usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify track identification and name constraints but fails to do so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds no meaning to 'track' (e.g., index or ID) or 'name' (format restrictions).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a playlist track' clearly states the action (rename) and resource (playlist track), distinguishing it from sibling tools like playlist_set_track_color or playlist_list_clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or constraints (e.g., track must exist, name uniqueness).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses pagination and the output format, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention that the operation is read-only, lacks side-effect information, and does not specify required permissions. The output format is partially given but could be more detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at one sentence, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter semantics, error conditions, or typical usage scenarios, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the five parameters (index, slot, location, limit, offset) despite 0% schema description coverage. The agent cannot infer the meaning or correct usage of these parameters from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List parameters (paginated)' clearly indicates the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'plugin_get_param' (single param) and 'plugin_find_param'. However, it does not explicitly state that it lists parameters for a specific plugin, relying on the tool name 'plugin_params' for context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plugin_get_param' or 'plugin_find_param'. The description does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool counts built-in presets but does not disclose behavior like return type, error handling (if plugin invalid), or whether user presets are excluded. The phrase 'built-in' implies exclusion of user presets, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it could be expanded to include parameter context without losing conciseness. The structure is front-loaded but lacks detail that would improve usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. The agent has no information on return value, parameter constraints, or what plugins are accessible. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description fails to cover key aspects for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (index, slot, location). The schema provides names, types, defaults, and enums, but the description does not explain what they signify or how to use them. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'Number of built-in presets for plugin.' It identifies the verb (count) and resource (presets), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'plugin_set_preset' or 'plugin_next_preset'. However, no other sibling tool counts presets, so purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use 'plugin_preset_count' vs 'plugin_set_preset' or 'plugin_param_count' is not indicated. The context signals show many plugin-related siblings, but the description does not help differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the current project is saved or discarded, whether confirmation is required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that might alter state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded purpose. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior regarding the current project, return value, or confirmation. More context is needed for an agent to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the template parameter is an optional path, but lacks details on format, supported file types, or what happens if omitted. The single parameter benefit is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a new project, optionally from a template path. It distinguishes from siblings like project_open (open existing) and project_save (save current). The verb 'Start' is somewhat generic but sufficient given the resource 'new project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it. Given the context of siblings, usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states 'switch' without explaining side effects, error handling for invalid indices, or whether the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise for the information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits essential context such as referencing arrangement_list for index discovery, leaving the user to infer or experiment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single integer parameter 'index' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not clarify what the index represents, its allowed range, or how to obtain valid indices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'switch' and resource 'arrangement', indicating a change to a different arrangement. However, it could be more specific about selecting by index, and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like arrangement_jump_marker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arrangement_list or arrangement_current. No prerequisites or contextual triggers are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it overwrites existing automation, requires a specific mode, or has side effects). The description merely restates the tool's apparent function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) without excess, but it lacks structure (no bullet list, no separation of concerns). It is concise but at the expense of helpful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable use. Missing definitions for key parameters like 'channel', 'param', and 'location' make the tool difficult to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'points' parameter by specifying format '{time_bars, value}', which helps understand the data structure. However, the other four parameters (channel, param, slot, location) remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Record automation on a plugin parameter', specifying the verb 'record' and the resource 'plugin parameter'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like automation_record_channel_volume by focusing on plugin parameters. However, it does not elaborate on scope or nuance beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling automation_record_* tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a destructive action (clearing bits) but omits details like whether the action is reversible, confirmation, or side effects on other pattern data. It does not state if it affects the underlying piano roll notes or only the step sequencer display.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and scope. It avoids unnecessary repetition, though it could incorporate more substance without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the exact impact on the pattern, or how it relates to other channel/pattern tools among the large sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It partially explains 'pattern' (optional, defaults to current pattern) but does not define 'index' as the channel index or provide ranges/valid values. The meaning of 'step-sequencer bits' is also ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clear all step-sequencer bits') and the resource ('for the channel'), with a scope qualifier ('in the current or specified pattern'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'channel_set_step_sequence' (which sets the whole sequence) and 'channel_set_grid_bit' (individual bits), though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative channel or pattern tools. It does not mention prerequisites, effects on the pattern, or any restrictions (e.g., whether it requires an active pattern or channel).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention side effects like affecting other tracks in solo mode or how null vs boolean values behave.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, but lacks important context. It could be slightly longer to explain parameters while remaining efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no param descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent. It needs to explain the default behavior and effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'track' is a mixer track index or that 'solo' can be true, false, or null to toggle.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Solo / unsolo / toggle' clearly states the actions (solo, unsolo, toggle) and the resource (mixer track solo). It distinguishes from siblings like mixer_mute or channel_solo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the effect on other tracks or the difference from channel_solo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions copying notes and grid bits but omits side effects like whether mixer routing, color, or selections are cloned. Does not state if a new pattern is created or if the existing one is replaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, but the parenthetical could be integrated. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail, making it less helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and the need to describe cloning behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result is, error conditions, or how the name parameter interacts with existing patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It does not clarify what 'index' refers to (pattern index?) or the role of 'new_name' (optional? behavior when empty?). This leaves the agent guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clone a pattern') and the scope ('copy all notes & channel grid bits'). The verb 'clone' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like pattern_create or pattern_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pattern_create, pattern_duplicate). It does not specify prerequisites or contexts where cloning is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a pattern by index' without explaining permanence, consequences, or whether deletion is reversible. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 5 words, but at the cost of missing critical details. A deletion tool warrants more explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the behavior or parameter meaning adequately, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'index' is described in the schema as a required integer but has 0% description coverage. The tool description says 'by index' but does not clarify indexing (e.g., zero-based vs one-based) or how to determine the index. Schema coverage is low, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'pattern' with the selection criterion 'by index'. Among sibling pattern tools, this uniquely identifies its deletion purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pattern_clear_step_sequence or other modifications) or any prerequisites. The description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behaviors like overwriting, default length (length_bars default null), and error handling. It does not mention whether an existing clip at the position is replaced or if invalid track/pattern indices cause errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient but perhaps too short given the missing details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or interaction with other parts of the playlist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not explain what each parameter means (e.g., track index, pattern index, bar position, optional length). The naming alone is insufficient for correct parameter filling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Place' and the resource 'pattern clip' on a 'playlist track at a given bar position', distinguishing it from sibling tools like playlist_delete_clip or pattern_clone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a pattern clip already exists at the position, or when to use playlist_list_clips). Lacks prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, error handling (e.g., parameter not found), or side effects. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of essential details. Single sentence with no structure or additional context. Could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. Does not clarify what the tool returns, parameter dependencies, or typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no meaning to parameters. Does not explain 'index', 'slot', 'location', or how 'name_contains' is matched. Lacks necessary context for correct parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding a parameter by substring (case-insensitive). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plugin_get_param or plugin_params.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like plugin_get_param, plugin_set_param, or plugin_params. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals the normalized range, omitting details about side effects, required permissions, undo behavior, or what happens on invalid values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key range constraint is communicated efficiently, though additional structure could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the roles of most parameters, leaving significant gaps in understanding for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'value' parameter's range. The meaning of 'index', 'param', 'slot', and 'location' remains unexplained, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a single parameter') and the value range ('0.0..1.0 normalised'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugin_get_param, but does not explicitly contrast with automation_record_plugin_param or other setter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as automation_record_plugin_param or plugin_set_preset. The description lacks context for selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and description only says 'open'. It does not disclose behavior like whether it closes the current project, handles errors, or requires a specific file format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but it is structurally sound. However, it could be improved with slight expansion to cover usage context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description provides the essential action. However, it lacks context for side effects and expected input format, making it adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'path' lacks description in schema (0% coverage). The description does not clarify expected format (absolute/relative, .flp extension required). No examples or constraints provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (open) and resource (existing .flp project). It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like project_new or project_save.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., project_new for creating, project_save for saving). No context about prerequisites or typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description gives no behavioral details—e.g., whether saving overwrites, prompts a dialog, or requires a prior save. This is critically insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (four words). While efficient, it sacrifices informativeness. A well-structured description would add a brief behavioral note without significant length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits essential context like whether it saves silently or invokes a dialog, which is needed for correct agent behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Save the project.' clearly identifies the action (save) and resource (project). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling 'project_save_as', which would save with a new name. A score of 4 reflects clarity without explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_save_as' or 'project_new'. There are no prerequisites or context cues, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool modifies the undo stack, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects, required project state, or whether multiple calls are safe. Basic behavioral transparency is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly too terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description should explain the purpose of the name and flags. It fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly, especially in relation to batch edits and the undo stack mechanism.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'name' or 'flags' parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden but adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field names. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool pushes a named entry onto the undo stack before batch edits, distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_undo (which performs undo) and project_undo_history (which lists history). However, it could be more explicit about the intended use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_save or project_undo. The description lacks context for appropriate usage and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only says 'seek to a specific position'. Does not disclose if seeking overrides playback, triggers any events, or how unit defaults affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, but too minimal—lacks necessary details for an agent to understand usage. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description should explain return behavior (e.g., void or status). Also missing explanation of unit enum and relationship to song structure. Sibling context indicates more detail needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, description adds no information about the 'position' or 'unit' parameters. No explanation of units (seconds, bars, ticks) or constraints beyond schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action 'Seek' and resource 'specific position in the song', distinguishing it from sibling tools like transport_jog (incremental) and transport_play (start playback).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transport_jog or transport_set_loop_mode. No mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., playback stopped vs playing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks details beyond the basic action. It does not explain the 'transient' nature (e.g., duration), whether the message overwrites previous hints, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to sufficiently disclose behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but it is too terse, sacrificing helpful context. While concise, it could include more information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits usage context, parameter details, and behavioral nuances that an AI agent would benefit from for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'message'. The description does not add any additional meaning, constraints, or formatting hints for the parameter, leaving the agent unclear about what kind of string is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Display') and the resource ('a transient hint message in FL Studio's status bar'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ui_hide_window or ui_show_window, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of others. The description does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states the creation and return value but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the new pattern becomes current), default behavior for an empty name, or any state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The description is front-loaded and clearly states the action and return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description omits important context such as the meaning of 'empty pattern', how it relates to other pattern tools, and the default behavior. More detail would help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose, behavior when empty, or impact on the created pattern. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'a new empty pattern', and specifies the return format {index, name}. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like pattern_clone or pattern_select.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pattern_clone, pattern_current). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'subtle' but does not explain whether it modifies notes destructively, which notes are affected (selected or all), or if results are reversible via undo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, but at the expense of essential details. No structure or front-loading of key usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations or output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description provides insufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond schema titles. Default values are in schema but not explained (e.g., what 0.02 bars means).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it adds randomization to timing and velocity. It distinguishes from quantization (snapping to grid), but could be more specific about scope (e.g., applies to piano roll notes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for humanizing quantized sequences, contrasting with 'piano_roll_quantize'. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like manual note editing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates mutation ('Remove') but fails to disclose behavior on invalid index, reversibility, or side effects on other markers. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence and no superfluous text. However, it is slightly under-specified, which limits its utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool signature (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should clarify the index parameter and possibly error handling. It does not achieve this, leaving the tool incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'index' parameter meaning, range, or whether it is 0-based. The schema only provides type and requirement; the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove' and the resource 'a playlist marker by index', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'playlist_add_marker' and 'playlist_list_markers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'playlist_delete_clip' or 'playlist_mute_track'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states show/hide and toggle behavior, lacking details on side effects, error handling, or requirements (e.g., valid plugin index, slot, location).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence that conveys the core action and the toggle special case. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the purpose of index, slot, or location, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning only for the 'show' parameter (None = toggle). Index, slot, and location parameters are not explained, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows/hides the plugin editor window and mentions the toggle behavior for None. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ui_show_window or ui_hide_window, which perform similar actions for generic windows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ui_show_window). There are no exclusions or context about required prerequisites, such as needing a valid plugin index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds value by revealing the polyphonic engine (Spotify Basic Pitch) and default monophonic engine (pyin). However, it omits details like output destination, prerequisites, and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) but lacks structure for parameter details. It is not wasteful, but the conciseness comes at the cost of missing essential parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain input file location, output behavior, or prerequisites like FL Studio state or extras installation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only covers 'polyphonic' (1 of 5 parameters). Required 'audio_path', 'min_note_sec', 'fmin_hz', 'fmax_hz' are left unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool transcribes audio files (wav/flac/mp3/ogg) to MIDI notes, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes polyphonic vs monophonic modes but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like voice_to_piano_roll.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies polyphonic=True for chords/full-mix but lacks comparison with alternatives like voice_to_piano_roll or voice_record_and_transcribe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only reveals that exclusive=True deselects others. No disclosure of side effects, error handling (e.g., invalid index), or state changes beyond selection. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and this falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no extraneous text. Front-loaded with action and key parameter behavior. Efficiently conveys core information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple select action with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior but omits details like return value, invalid index handling, and what 'select' visually or functionally entails. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the exclusive parameter's effect but says nothing about 'index' (what values are valid? 0-based or 1-based?). Only partial addition of meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (select a channel) and mentions the exclusive parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'channel_selected' (which likely gets selection) and 'arrangement_select', but could be more explicit about what 'channel' means in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., channel_mute, channel_solo). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use instructions. The exclusive parameter hint is helpful but insufficient for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error handling, or permissions, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it could provide more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters with no documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool. Missing value ranges and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the meaning of 'index', 'position', or 'value'. The tool name implies coordinates and a boolean state, but explicit guidance is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set) and the resource (single step-sequencer bit), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_get_grid_bit and channel_set_step_sequence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., channel_set_step_sequence for bulk operations) or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool overwrites the step sequence and that steps must be a list of 0/1 ints up to pattern length, but it does not explain what happens if the pattern is null or if steps exceed the pattern length, nor does it mention permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to front-load the action and then detail parameters, but current structure is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the index and pattern parameters, does not indicate the return value or effect on the channel, and lacks context on when to use this vs related tools like channel_set_grid_bit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'steps' parameter is described (as a list of 0/1 ints up to pattern length). The 'index' and 'pattern' parameters are not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds some value but insufficiently compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Overwrite' and the resource 'step sequence', clearly indicating it replaces the existing step sequence. This distinguishes it from siblings like channel_get_step_sequence (read) and channel_clear_step_sequence (clear).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 does not mention when to use channel_set_grid_bit or channel_clear_step_sequence instead, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing notes are cleared, if the action is reversible, or system requirements). The presence of a 'clear_first' parameter hints at destructive 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 10 parameters. It is front-loaded but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the chord format, velocity, duration, or pattern, leaving the agent unprepared to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It mentions 'N octaves' but does not link to the 'octaves' parameter or explain other key parameters like 'root', 'quality', 'direction', or 'pattern'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool emits an arpeggio across N octaves for a given chord, which distinguishes it from other emit tools like gen_emit_bassline or gen_emit_melody.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like piano_roll_add_arpeggio or other gen_emit tools. The description gives no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state whether the operation modifies in place, is undoable, has side effects, or what happens with out-of-range semitone values. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 6 words) and front-loaded with the essential action. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail; however, for a simple operation, this level of conciseness is borderline acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, scope (e.g., active pattern or channel), and operational semantics. A more complete description would at minimum list the parameters and their effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the 'semitones' parameter only. The 'channel' and 'pattern' parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose unclear. The description adds some value for the required parameter but fails to compensate for the undocumented optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('shift every note') and the parameter ('N semitones'), distinguishing it from siblings like add, delete, quantize, etc. The verb 'shift' combined with 'piano_roll_transpose' name makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like piano_roll_humanize, piano_roll_quantize, or manual note editing. An agent would not know if transpose is preferred for pitch shifts over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Add a playlist marker' without disclosing side effects, whether the operation is undoable, if it requires a specific state (e.g., playlist open), or what happens on failure. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too minimal for effective use, but for conciseness criterion it meets the bar well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the result of adding a marker, any constraints on positioning, or behavior when the marker name is omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters. The parameter names ('position_bars', 'name') are somewhat clear but the description adds no extra meaning. For a required parameter like position_bars, it's unclear if it's in bars or beats, and what format is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a playlist marker' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (playlist marker). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'playlist_delete_marker' and 'playlist_list_markers', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as needing an active playlist or that markers are added to the current playlist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose what happens if the slot is invalid, whether the tool triggers side effects, or what 'valid' means. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is good, but the structure does not prioritize key information like parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return type (e.g., boolean). It does not. Given 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. However, it offers no explanation for the three parameters (index, slot, location), their defaults, or their roles. This is a severe gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check if' and the resource 'plugin slot' along with the condition 'has a valid plugin loaded'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugin_get_param or plugin_name, which deal with parameter values or names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does 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, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is implied from the name and description, but explicit context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet the description omits behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the track parameter is invalid, or if it returns live data. It only states the return content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no waste. Front-loads the action and return content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description hints at return values (gains + frequencies) but lacks structure or details. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is somewhat adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'track' is not described in the description; there is no explanation of its meaning (e.g., zero-based vs one-based indexing, valid range, or requirement). Schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a 3-band mixer EQ with gains and frequencies, using a specific verb (Return) and resource (mixer EQ). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mixer_set_eq_band (which sets a band) and mixer_track_info (general track info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mixer_set_eq_band. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., track existence) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only or whether it has side effects. The term 'info' implies non-destructive, but this is implicit and insufficient for a high score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, listing all key information in a single sentence. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete in listing returned attributes, but it lacks parameter format details. It is adequate but not excellent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'track' (e.g., whether it is 1-indexed, zero-indexed, or any constraints). The parameter's semantics are entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns 'detailed info' on a mixer track and enumerates specific attributes (name, vol, pan, mute, etc.), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like mixer_fx_slots which only return FX slots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mixer_all_tracks or mixer_fx_slots. The description does not mention when it is appropriate or inappropriate to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses use of processRECEvent for undo history, but fails to mention other behavioral traits like impact on playback, required project state, or immediate effect. With no annotations, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Omits important context such as valid BPM range, effect on playback, and whether it is a global setting. For a state-mutating tool, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter 'bpm' has no schema description and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the name. No range, validation, or examples provided, despite 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Set the project tempo in BPM', specifying the verb, resource, and unit. Differentiates from sibling transport_tap_tempo by omitting tap functionality, but doesn't explicitly distinguish from other tempo-setting methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transport_tap_tempo. Missing context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present; the description only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond the basic rename operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simplicity, the description omits details like index format (0-based?), return value, and potential impact on references, which are needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation for the 'index' and 'name' parameters, leaving ambiguity about how to specify the channel.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a channel.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling channel_set_* tools like channel_set_color or channel_set_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Set channel pan' which implies a write operation but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether it overwrites automation or requires the channel to be selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. While concise, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly linking parameters to their roles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'channel' means in this system, what the return value is, and whether any state must be prepared before calling this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'pan' parameter by including the range, but provides no explanation for the 'index' parameter, leaving it ambiguous what 'channel' index refers to (mixer track? instrument channel?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Set) and object (channel pan) and specifies the valid range (-1.0..1.0). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_set_volume or channel_set_pitch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., automation_record_channel_pan). There is no mention of prerequisites, expected context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states the action without disclosing any side effects, error behavior, or requirements such as track existence or color validation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence that quickly conveys the core purpose. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Could be slightly more detailed but avoids unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal tool with two required params and no output schema, but description does not explain valid track indices, error handling, or behavior when color format is invalid. Lacks completeness for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds clarity for the 'color' parameter by specifying accepted formats ('#RRGGBB' or 'rgb(r,g,b)'). However, no additional meaning for the 'track' parameter beyond its schema type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage, partial improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Set'), resource ('mixer track color'), and specifies accepted color formats. Unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that set other mixer properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channel_set_color' for channel colors. Does not mention prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states a write operation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overrides existing sends, requires existing routing) or error handling (invalid track indices). The range 0..1 is useful but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence front-loads the action and scope. No filler, every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but lacks critical context: no mention of return value, error conditions, or whether it creates a send route if absent. Given no output schema or annotations, the description should cover these basics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains the 'level' range (0..1) but does not describe 'src_track' or 'dst_track' semantics, leaving the agent to infer their roles from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Set' and the resource 'send level from one mixer track to another', including the value range (0..1). This uniquely identifies the tool among sibling mixer tools that set volume, pan, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or exclusions. For instance, it does not mention whether a send must already exist or if the tool creates one, leaving the agent uncertain about preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only provides the volume range. With no annotations, it does not disclose what happens on invalid input, whether changes are destructive, or if permissions are needed. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits details like track indexing convention, behavior on out-of-range volume, and any side effects, which are important for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only the volume range. It does not explain the track parameter index or volume units beyond the range, providing marginal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Set), resource (mixer track volume), and range (0.0..1.0). It distinguishes the tool from sibling mixer_set_* tools and other volume-related tools like channel_set_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like channel_set_volume or other mixer_set_* tools. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'select' but does not specify wrap-around behavior, whether it changes the current pattern, or what happens at the end of the list. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without adding verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple navigation tool, the description is adequate but lacks details such as wrap-around behavior or effect on the current selection. With no output schema, the description is the sole source of information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Select the next pattern in the list' clearly indicates the action (select) and resource (next pattern) with context (in the list). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pattern_jump_to_previous'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description lacks key behavioral details such as whether the tool overwrites existing files, changes the current working project path, or triggers a save dialog. Basic mutation behavior is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too brief. It omits crucial context about the effect on the current project, what happens on existing paths, and whether this is a copy or move operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds only 'new path', which is minimal and does not clarify path format, validation, or behavior when the file exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('save') and the resource ('the project') to a new path, distinguishing it from project_save which likely saves to the current path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like project_save or project_save_undo. The description does not mention prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Undo last action' but does not explain that this is a mutation, whether it can be reversed with redo, or any limits on undo history.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) with no wasted content. While more context could be added, the minimal length is appropriate for a simple action like undo.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks references to related tools (project_redo, project_undo_history) that would provide helpful context for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, earning a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool undoes the last action, which is a specific verb+resource. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like project_redo or project_undo_history, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that project_undo_history can be used to view undoable actions before invoking undo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states it 'Set[s] project time signature' but does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or whether it affects playback. The examples add no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with examples, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. For a mutation tool that changes project state, more context about valid values and effects is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain parameter meaning beyond the examples. It does not specify valid ranges (e.g., denominator typically a power of 2) or that both are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' and resource 'project time signature', with clear examples (4/4, 3/4, 7/8). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transport_set_tempo or transport_play.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. The purpose is straightforward, but no constraints or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Toggle', which implies a state switch. It does not explain what the countdown behavior is, what triggers it, or any side effects. More detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what the countdown is, how toggling affects recording, or what the return state might be. It could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. It does not contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle 'countdown before recording' clearly states the action on a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like transport_record or transport_toggle_metronome. However, it largely paraphrases the name, adding minimal extra clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that toggling the countdown is typically done before recording, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Open the piano roll,' without detailing side effects, error handling, or whether it changes the focused window. The optional pattern switch is mentioned but 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose and optionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple UI action with two parameters, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, potential errors, and how it relates to other piano_roll tools. No output schema is needed, but behavioral expectations are minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'channel' as the target and 'pattern' as optional to switch first. However, it does not clarify indexing (0- or 1-based) or valid values for the pattern (e.g., pattern index or name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: opening the piano roll for a given channel, with an optional pattern switch. It uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling piano_roll tools that modify notes rather than open the UI.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like piano_roll_add_notes or ui_scroll_to_channel. The description does not mention preconditions, such as whether the channel must already exist in the project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values but not whether it's a read-only operation, error conditions (e.g., no selection), or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, very concise, front-loaded with the action and output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on edge cases or behavioral context that would be helpful without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns the selected channel index and name. The verb 'Return' and resource 'selected channel' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'channel_selected' or 'channel_info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implied use for querying the current selection, but no explicit when-not-to-use or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details: it does not explain what happens if the window is already open, if it raises errors for invalid names, or any side effects. No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but missing behavioral and usage details required for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the enum values. For example, it could explain how the 'focus' parameter affects behavior but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Open / focus') and resource ('a main window by name'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'ui_hide_window' and 'ui_focused_window'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to open vs. focus, or how it differs from other window-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the points format but fails to specify whether automation overwrites or adds, constraints on time_bars/value, or effects on existing automation. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a terse note on points format. No filler or repetition; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical context: channel indexing, value ranges, automation behavior (overwrite vs. add), and error handling. It is incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by showing the structure of 'points' as [{time_bars, value}]. However, the 'channel' parameter lacks any additional meaning beyond its type, leaving room for ambiguity (e.g., indexing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Record volume automation') and the target resource ('on a channel'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like automation_record_channel_pan (pan) and automation_record_mixer_volume (mixer track).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pan, mixer volume, or plugin parameter automation). The description only implies the purpose, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the three modes (mute, unmute, toggle) and specifies that null triggers toggle. However, it does not disclose side effects like audio silencing or relationship with mixer mute.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 7 words, it is extremely concise and front-loaded. No redundant words, though it could spare a few more words for parameter context without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior but omits usage prerequisites, error conditions, and the meaning of 'index'. Minimal but functional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the 'muted' parameter's toggle behavior (null = toggle), which adds value beyond the schema's type annotation. But the 'index' parameter is left undefined, and schema coverage is 0%, so half the parameters lack explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool mutes/unmutes/toggles a channel, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mixer_mute' that target mixer tracks. However, it could explicitly mention 'channel strip mute' for extra clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channel_solo' or 'mixer_mute'. The description lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., channel existence), or error conditions. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to explain return values, validation behavior, or context about channel indices, which are needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the valid range for the 'semitones' parameter (-120..120), which is not present in the schema. However, it does not explain what 'index' refers to (presumably channel index), leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: setting a channel's pitch offset in semitones, with a specific range. It uses a verb+resource structure and distinguishes it from sibling tools like channel_set_volume or channel_set_pan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes the action without contextual use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives the volume range but does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens on invalid input (e.g., index out of range). The description fails to inform the agent about potential destructive effects or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes critical numeric context without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description does not explain return values, error behavior, or required conditions. For a two-parameter setter, more context (e.g., whether volume is immediate, if channel must exist) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to the volume parameter by explaining the scale and 0 dB reference, but it does not explain the index parameter (likely channel index). This is helpful but incomplete, warranting a middle score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool sets channel volume with a specific verb and resource. It provides the valid range and a calibration point (0.78 ≈ 0 dB), making the purpose unambiguous. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like channel_set_pan, the action is distinct and well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mixer_set_volume for mixer tracks). No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned. The description only states the action and range, leaving the agent without decision-support for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the MIDI mapping and loop structure, but omits side effects (e.g., whether it clears existing notes, appends, or overwrites) and does not mention what happens if no piano roll is open.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though a bit more structure (e.g., listing parameters) would improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain two of the three parameters and does not clarify the tool's interaction with the open piano roll or potential destructive actions, making it hard to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'repeats' parameter (2-bar loop, default 2). The 'style' enum and 'clear_first' boolean are not described, leaving their meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool emits a Drum & Bass drum groove to the open piano roll using specific MIDI note numbers (36 kick, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gen_emit_bassline or gen_emit_melody by specifying the genre and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that a 'repeat' is a 2-bar loop and default is 4 bars, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gen_emit_drum_pattern_notes) or any prerequisites like an open piano roll being required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action (rename) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as whether the name is overwritten, constraints on the name string, or side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does, but lacks details on return values or side effects. For a basic setter, this is acceptable but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not describe the parameters at all. While parameter names (track, name) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add any value beyond what the schema provides. It does not specify data types, formats, or default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a mixer track' is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly indicates that the tool changes the name of a mixer track, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mixer_set_color or mixer_set_volume which set other properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: when you want to rename a mixer track. No explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or alternatives. For a straightforward setter, this is adequate but lacks explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, potential errors (e.g., if no project is open), or performance characteristics. The word 'snapshot' hints at read-only behavior, but this is not explicit, and no other safety details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, efficiently front-loading the purpose ('Project snapshot') and listing the returned fields. No wasted words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters, the absence of an output schema makes the description insufficient. The fields like 'signature' and 'selected' are ambiguous (e.g., time signature format? selected track or channel?). The description does not explain field types, formats, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter semantics since there are none, but it does clarify that no inputs are needed, which is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning a snapshot of project metadata including tempo, signature, tracks, channels, patterns, selected, title, and path. This distinguishes it from sibling project tools like project_new or project_open, which are actions rather than read queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as reading individual attributes or checking if a project is loaded. The description only lists returned fields, lacking context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Return'), but there are no annotations to confirm. No disclosure of side effects, permissions required, or what happens if history is empty. For a simple retrieval tool, more context about the stack's structure or behavior would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core function. Perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details like the format of the returned stack (e.g., list of strings, objects) or what each entry represents. For a complete understanding, an agent might need more information about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information since none exist. The schema coverage is 100% by default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('undo history stack'). It is distinct from sibling tools like project_undo and project_redo, which perform actions rather than retrieve state. However, the description could be more precise about what is returned (e.g., list of steps, metadata).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that it is for inspection rather than modification, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. Sibling tools like project_undo and project_redo are for performing actions, but this distinction is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description conveys the basic mutation (closing a window), but lacks detail on behavior when the window is already closed, error handling, or side effects. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no extraneous information. It is optimally concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, single action), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could include a list of window names or note that closing a hidden window may have no effect. The lack of parameter description reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'name' parameter or list the possible window values. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap. The agent must rely solely on the enum list in the schema, which is not self-explanatory for all values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close') and the resource ('a main window'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ui_show_window and ui_focused_window, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that ui_show_window is for opening windows or that ui_focused_window provides window info. Context of use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It lists returned properties but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. Essential behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like front-loading or bullet points that could improve scannability. Still, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description lists the returned fields, which is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about the return format, error cases, or index range, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no additional meaning for the 'index' parameter beyond what the schema already conveys (type integer, required). The agent is left without guidance on index interpretation (e.g., 0-based vs 1-based).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb ('get detailed info') and the resource ('one channel'), and lists the specific properties returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools that set or modify individual properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving channel details but does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channel_all' or individual getter tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the action is a 'one-shot' and 'not recorded', hinting at non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, required state (e.g., channel selection), or whether the note is audible immediately. The behavioral context is basic but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the essential verb and domain ('trigger a one-shot MIDI note'). No extraneous words or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., whether the channel must be specific). The completeness is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no additional meaning for the four parameters (index, note, velocity, duration_ms). It only mentions 'MIDI note' generically. With no parameter elaboration, the description fails to add value beyond the schema names for an agent to correctly set arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'trigger', the resource 'one-shot MIDI note', and the scope 'on the channel (live preview, not recorded)'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'audio_analyze' or 'piano_roll_add_notes' which handle permanent or recorded data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'live preview, not recorded' implies the tool is for real-time auditioning, not permanent changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Some guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool can invoke any action with arbitrary params, but fails to disclose potential risks (e.g., destructive operations), error behavior, or the scope of 'MIDI bridge.' Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key concept ('Escape hatch') and purpose. Every word is justified; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and the generic nature of the tool, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial details like how to format action strings, what the params object expects, error handling, and side effects. An AI agent would likely struggle to use this tool correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only 'with arbitrary params,' not explaining valid values for 'action' or structure of 'params.' The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it invokes any action the MIDI bridge accepts with arbitrary params, and the name 'Escape hatch' signals its role as a generic fallback, distinguishing it from the many specific sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when no specific tool exists, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it, nor provides alternatives. The term 'Escape hatch' hints at exceptional use, but lacks concrete guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the MIDI bridge requirement but fails to disclose important behaviors like whether the tool overwrites existing patterns, potential side effects, or error handling. The mutation action is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be improved by separating parameter documentation more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 params, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter semantics for most params, and any return value information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'channel_map' parameter (mapping drum names to channel indices), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the other three parameters (style, repeats, pattern) have no description coverage and are not explained, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Write' and resource 'drum groove into the step sequencer', and distinguishes from sibling tool 'gen_emit_drum_pattern_notes' by specifying the target (step sequencer vs. notes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('requires MIDI bridge') and hints at when to use ('when you DO have a MIDI bridge'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives (e.g., using gen_emit_drum_pattern_notes without a bridge).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior and use of render dialog automation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., file overwriting, project state changes), cancellation, or return value. Some transparency, but notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (blocking). Every word adds value, no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. Missing details on parameter meaning, error handling, return behavior, and interaction with project state reduce its utility for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no detail about parameters. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of 'path', 'format', or 'mode', leaving the agent without necessary guidance for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Trigger render to disk') and resource (the project). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by specifying it uses FL's render dialog automation and blocks until complete, which is unique among the listed tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context ('blocks until complete') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The blocking behavior is useful, but lacking explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists channels with basic info, but does not mention performance, side effects, or output format. With no annotations, more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks clarification of what 'basic info' includes, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no parameters, so description adds no param info, but baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on non-existent params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists all channels with basic info, which distinguishes it from channel-specific tools like channel_info. However, 'basic info' is vague and could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. Context implies it's for getting a list of all channels, but alternatives are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core action (enable/disable) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether disabling a route affects audio immediately, whether it's reversible, or if any permissions are needed). For a simple toggle, it is minimally adequate but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant information. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and sibling tools like mixer_mute and mixer_set_send_level, the description covers the basic operation. However, it could be improved by mentioning that it toggles a send (aux route) as opposed to the main mixer route, and by clarifying parameter roles. Overall, it is minimally complete but lacks helpful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only implies that src_track and dst_track are the two tracks, but does not clarify their roles (e.g., from which to which), nor does it explain the enabled parameter or its default value. It adds marginal meaning beyond the parameter names but insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (enable/disable), resource (mixer route/send), and scope (between two tracks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mixer_mute, mixer_set_send_level, and mixer_link_to_channel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites (e.g., tracks must exist, route must be available) or when not to use. The description is purely functional without contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and only a one-line description, behavioral traits such as whether it counts patterns globally or per project, or any potential side effects, are absent. The description does not disclose if the count is computed live or cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and minimal description, the agent is left unsure about the scope of the count (e.g., total patterns in the project? across all projects?). The tool's simplicity does not fully compensate for this lack of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return total pattern count' clearly states a specific verb (return) and resource (total pattern count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pattern_list (lists patterns) and pattern_current (returns current pattern).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pattern_list for details, pattern_current for current) or any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The tool deletes a clip, but there is no mention of side effects (e.g., shifting subsequent clips), reversibility, or what happens when a clip doesn't exist at the given position.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and location. It lacks detail on error behavior (e.g., clip not found) but is largely complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description loosely maps parameters to 'track' and 'bar position'. It adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names, not clarifying accepted ranges or whether position_bars can be fractional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete), resource (clip on a track), and location parameter (starting at given bar position). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like playlist_list_clips or playlist_place_pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description is purely functional without context on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description only conveys that it is a setter/mutation. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track existence), or UI impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it very concise. It could benefit from structured parameter details but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on validation (e.g., valid hex colors) and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'color' parameter by specifying the format '#RRGGBB'. However, the 'track' parameter remains unexplained (index? name?), and the schema has 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set playlist track color' and specifies the expected color format '#RRGGBB'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like playlist_set_track_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are mostly different actions (mute, rename, etc.), so the use case is fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it sets the loop mode, which implies a change in state, but does not disclose any additional behaviors (e.g., whether it affects ongoing playback, if it requires the transport to be stopped). Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the given information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one enum parameter, no output schema), the description is functionally complete but lacks context about the effect on the project or relationship to other transport tools. Could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the enum values already defined in the schema. It does not explain what each mode ('song' or 'pattern') does or how they differ.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'FL Studio's song/pattern loop mode', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling transport tools like play, stop, record, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set loop mode vs toggling playback). No context about prerequisites or expected outcomes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks details on side effects (e.g., selection, error handling, animation). Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param, no annotations), the description is adequate but missing details on indexing and behavior for invalid input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description does not add meaning beyond the parameter name 'channel'. No clarification on indexing or bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scroll the channel rack to show a channel' clearly states the action (scroll) and target (channel rack), distinguishing it from sibling tools like channel_select or ui_selected_channel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must bear the transparency burden. It declares a read-only listing operation, which is clear. However, it does not disclose details like ordering, whether it returns names or indices, or any formatting specifics. For a simple list tool, this is minimally acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that contains no filler. Every word is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It fails only to specify the return format (e.g., list of names or IDs), but for a straightforward enumeration, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List all arrangements', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like arrangement_current (which returns the current arrangement) or arrangement_select (which selects an arrangement).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description lacks context about typical usage scenarios before performing operations on arrangements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation returning time in three units, but does not specify the return format or whether the time is relative to the song start. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the what and the units. Minor gap: does not describe whether the result is a single string or structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current playback time' with specific units (ticks, bars, seconds). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transport_set_position which are setters, but does not explicitly contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transport_status or arrangement_current. Lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses core behaviors (monophonic default, polyphonic option needing extra library, BPM and key snapping). However, it does not mention the clear_first parameter (which defaults to true) or the effect of transpose_semitones and min_confidence. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise at 3 sentences, but it could be better structured by separating behavior from parameter guidance. It front-loads the main action and then lists parameter behaviors, which is reasonable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers key behaviors but omits several parameters, does not explain the return value (state of piano roll after execution), and assumes knowledge of internal libraries (pyin, Basic Pitch). A more comprehensive description would describe all parameters and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 4 of 7 parameters (path, bpm, snap_to_detected_key, polyphonic). It omits explanations for transpose_semitones, min_confidence, and clear_first, leaving gaps that the agent must infer from parameter names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts notes from audio and pushes them into the FL piano roll. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the default monophonic extraction (pyin) and optional polyphonic transcription, providing a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains default vs. polyphonic modes and the effects of bpm and snap_to_detected_key, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like voice_notes_to_piano_roll or piano_roll_add_notes. No when-not-to-use advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the basic operation (slice at onsets, save as WAV) but lacks details on side effects, file overwriting, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-loaded with the core function, followed by a practical example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about disk writing behavior, file naming, and edge cases. It leaves many operational details unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter. The schema has titles and defaults, but the agent gains no additional semantics from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool slices audio at detected onsets and saves as WAV files, with an example use case for drum loops. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the slice-and-save function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a concrete use case (chopping drum loops) but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses it does not write, but doesn't specify other behaviors like whether it is read-only or computational.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the brief description leaves agents guessing about return format and parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description provides no explanation of root, quality, or inversion parameters, nor any examples or accepted values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns MIDI notes for a single chord and explicitly says 'no FL write', distinguishing it from writing tools like gen_emit_chord_progression.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for getting chord notes without writing, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings like gen_scale_notes or gen_emit_arpeggio.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it returns progressions but does not disclose read-only nature, output format, or any behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of strings, objects). For a simple list tool, this may be sufficient but could be clearer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('all built-in Roman-numeral progressions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gen_list_chord_qualities or gen_list_scales.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gen_list_chord_qualities or gen_list_scales; no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the action (mute/unmute/toggle) but fails to mention potential side effects, error handling, or prerequisites. Important behavior like whether the operation is reversible or what happens with invalid track indices is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and provides the essential nuance about the toggle behavior, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and the toggle nuance, but lacks context about the track parameter (e.g., valid range), return values, error conditions, or any prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description clarifies the critical ambiguity of the 'muted' parameter by explicitly stating that 'None = toggle'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: mute, unmute, or toggle. Combined with the tool name 'mixer_mute' and the required 'track' parameter, it precisely identifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling mixer tools like mixer_solo or mixer_set_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mixer_solo or mixer_arm. The description only explains the toggle behavior but omits context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 states 'returns all notes' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or affects state. For a read tool, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed. The description is minimally adequate but lacks explicit behavioral traits like 'read-only' or 'non-destructive'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the returned 'notes' look like, how channel/pattern filter the data, or what happens if parameters are omitted. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two optional parameters (channel, pattern) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what these parameters do or how they affect the output. 'Returns all notes' conflicts with the existence of parameters, which likely filter results. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the current piano-roll state and returns all notes. It uses a specific verb ('Read back') and identifies the resource ('piano-roll state'). Among sibling tools, this is the only read operation for piano roll notes, distinguishing it clearly from modification tools like piano_roll_add_notes or piano_roll_clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading piano roll notes but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. Among many piano_roll_* siblings, no guidance is given on when to prefer this over piano_roll_status (which might return status, not notes) or other note tools. The context is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source. It indicates a read-only listing operation, which is accurate. However, it doesn't disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid track index) or any other behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no superfluous text. It front-loads the core functionality without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and the context (FX slots of a mixer track). Minor gap: no mention of return format or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'track' is only described as an integer in the schema with no description. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as valid range or format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all loaded plugins in every FX slot of a mixer track. The verb 'list' and resource are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plugin_name or plugin_params that deal with individual plugins.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or provide any selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Start or toggle' is ambiguous about whether it toggles between play and stop or just starts. Missing details on side effects or state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence clearly stating the tool's action. No wasted words or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple playback toggle with no parameters or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the large set of sibling tools, more context on when to use this over others would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but with zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start or toggle' and the resource 'playback', with an explicit analogy to 'FL Studio's Play button'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transport_stop and transport_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as transport_stop or transport_jog. The description implies its purpose but lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'toggle' without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or the exact behavior (e.g., which track's arm is affected).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is barely adequate but fails to define 'record arm state' or clarify which track it applies to.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds nothing extra, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Toggle') and the resource ('record arm state'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like transport_play or transport_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a safe read operation, but does not specify what happens if no window is focused, if there are side effects, or the exact data structure returned. The transparency is adequate for a simple info retrieval but lacking detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers the essential functionality. It could mention the format of returned info, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. No additional parameter info is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns info about the currently focused FL Studio window. The verb 'Return info' and resource 'focused FL Studio window' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling UI tools like 'ui_hide_window' or 'ui_show_window' which manipulate windows rather than retrieve info. However, it could be more precise about the type of info returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'ui_selected_channel' or other UI info tools. There is no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious. It simply states what it returns, with no mention of side effects, performance, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose with no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the trivial nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It could optionally list example chord qualities, but that is not necessary for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all supported chord quality names, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gen_chord_notes which generate chord patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While context suggests it's for listing available chord qualities before using other generation tools, no explicit instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, data source). For a simple read-only tool, minimal transparency is acceptable, but absence of any cues lowers the score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is extremely concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lacks details on the return format (e.g., list of strings), but the function is straightforward and the context suffices for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying that the returned styles are for Drum & Bass, which informs the agent of the content type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'available Drum & Bass drum pattern styles', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gen_list_drum_patterns or gen_list_scales.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description merely states what it does, without context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function without any behavioral context (e.g., whether the list is static/dynamic, performance implications, or that it's a read-only operation).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, perfectly concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., array of strings), but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no extra parameter meaning but is not needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'all supported scale names', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gen_list_chord_qualities or gen_list_drum_patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it could mention that the returned names can be used with gen_scale_notes or other scale-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that empty slots return -1 and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explain error behavior for invalid track indices or whether the tool has any side effects, though none are expected for a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words with zero waste. Every word is informative and no unnecessary details are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. Missing details about track indexing and return format (e.g., list of 10 integers) could lead to misuse. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single required parameter 'track' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not clarify its semantics (e.g., 0-based or 1-based indexing, valid range). This is a critical gap that hampers correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (plugin IDs in FX slots), and the scope (10 slots of a mixer track, with -1 for empty). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like mixer_track_info and plugin_list_mixer_track by specifying that it returns slot IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin_list_mixer_track or mixer_track_info. The description does not mention prerequisites, track index base, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the range (0.25..4.0) but does not explain side effects like pitch change, tempo independence, or whether it affects recording. Essential transparency is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 36 characters with no filler, achieving maximal conciseness while conveying the core purpose and constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward setter with one parameter, the description is largely complete. However, it omits return value (no output schema) and any behavioral context. Still adequate for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only type 'number' for the 'speed' parameter, with 0% coverage. The description adds the valid range '0.25..4.0' and implies it's a multiplier, significantly improving understanding beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Set the playback speed multiplier (0.25..4.0).' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('playback speed multiplier'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transport_play, transport_set_tempo, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as transport_set_tempo or transport_tap_tempo. The description lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., behavior when no markers exist or at boundaries), nor does it specify if the operation is instantaneous or animated. The tool's safety profile is not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with clear front-loading of the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and no information is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about return values, side effects, or error conditions (e.g., no markers present). Without output schema, the agent needs to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides a default and type for 'direction'. The description clarifies that +1 means next and -1 means previous, adding essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain behavior for other integer values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'jump' and the resource 'playhead to next (+1) or previous (-1) marker'. It specifies scope 'within current arrangement', distinguishing it from sibling tools like arrangement_list or arrangement_current. This is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for navigating markers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arrangement_select or transport_set_position. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (non-destructive) but does not detail error handling or constraints (e.g., valid parameter ranges). The behavioral picture is minimal but accurate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. The most critical information (verb, resource, position base) is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and clarifies position base. However, it fails to mention the return value type (e.g., boolean, integer) or valid input ranges, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value for 'position' (0-based step) but leaves 'index' unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, half of the parameters lack semantic guidance, making the description only partially helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Read[s] a single step-sequencer bit' and specifies the resource and that position is 0-based step within a pattern. This distinguishes from sibling tools like channel_set_grid_bit (write) and channel_get_step_sequence (get all steps).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies read-only usage but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like channel_get_step_sequence. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only operation ('Read'), which is positive. However, it does not disclose the return format, any side effects, or constraints. The optional pattern filtering is noted, but behavioral traits beyond that are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence containing the core action and optionality. No extra words, front-loaded with the verb. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves out what 'full step sequence' means as output. It could specify that it returns a list of step values or similar.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the parameters by mentioning 'channel' (mapped to index) and 'pattern' (optional filter), which the schema lacks. However, it doesn't clarify what values are valid for index or pattern, nor the data type expectations beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('full step sequence for a channel'), and distinguishes from siblings like channel_set_step_sequence (write) or channel_get_grid_bit (single bit). The optional pattern filter is explicitly mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving the entire step sequence, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of when to prefer channel_get_grid_bit or channel_clear_step_sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes failure behavior offline but does not disclose that it is read-only, what 'detailed info' includes, or the nature of failure (error/exception). Significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with 'Detailed info'. No extraneous content—every phrase adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description minimally covers purpose and a failure condition but omits return structure or format. Adequate for a simple info tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; description adds no param details but does not need to. No deduction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Detailed info about the MIDI bridge', specifying the verb (get info) and the resource (MIDI bridge). It also adds a distinguishing condition (fails if offline), making it clear among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the bridge is online via 'fails if it's offline', but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Among siblings, related tools like fl_ping or fl_reconnect are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden of disclosure. It states 'drop and reopen' which implies interruption, but does not warn about potential side effects like lost data or ongoing session disruption. Adequate but could be more thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no params or output schema, but description lacks context about when to use (e.g., reconnection needed) and consequences. Minimal but not fully scaffolded for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies as description need not add param info. Nothing to improve here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (drop and reopen) and specific resource (TCP connection to MIDI bridge). Verb is precise and distinguishes from sibling tools like fl_bridge_info or fl_ping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify recommended scenarios (e.g., after connection loss), nor when not to use (e.g., during active MIDI operations). Lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions it emits notes to piano roll but does not disclose if it clears existing notes (though parameter clear_first exists but is not described). Does not explain side effects or permissions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one short paragraph with purpose, usage, and parameter notes. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key action and prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing descriptions for step_bars, repeats, and clear_first parameters. No output schema information. Does not compare to sibling tool gen_emit_drum_pattern_step_seq. Incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description explains only 2 of 5 parameters (midi_map with defaults, style reference). Parameters step_bars, repeats, and clear_first are not described, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'emit a drum groove to the currently-open piano roll as individual notes' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling gen_emit_drum_pattern_step_seq by specifying 'when you don't have a MIDI bridge (no step sequencer access)'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you don't have a MIDI bridge (no step sequencer access).' Provides prerequisite: 'Open the drum channel's piano roll first.' No explicit when-not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides the valid range for pan, but nothing else. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. Missing details like what happens if pan is out of range or track does not exist. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and range. No wasted words. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits details like track indexing and behavioral traits that would help an agent use it correctly without prior knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds the range for the pan parameter, which is helpful, but does not clarify what 'track' means (e.g., 0-based or 1-based index). Partial compensation but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the action ('Set mixer track pan') and includes the valid range (-1.0..1.0). Clear verb+resource combination that distinguishes from sibling tools like mixer_set_volume or mixer_set_stereo_separation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the action name, but no explicit context about when to adjust pan versus other mixer parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions setting a value with a range but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or prerequisites such as whether the track must exist. For a simple setter, minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no mention of track indexing, no return value, no error conditions. Completeness is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'separation' parameter by specifying its range, but the 'track' parameter is left unexplained (e.g., indexing, valid range). Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set', the resource 'mixer track stereo separation', and includes the valid range (-1.0..1.0). This distinguishes it from sibling mixer tools like mixer_set_pan and mixer_set_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the resource directly; there is no alternative tool for stereo separation among siblings. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the tool 'selects' but does not disclose side effects, boundary behavior (e.g., what happens at the first pattern), or whether it modifies state beyond selection. Limited transparency for a mutation-like action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about boundary behavior (e.g., what happens when already at the first pattern) or the exact meaning of 'select' (e.g., does it change the active pattern in the UI?).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameters and no need for compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Select the previous pattern') and the resource ('in the list'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'pattern_jump_to_next', which would select the next pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage context (navigating patterns sequentially) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, which is adequate for a simple navigation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose side effects (e.g., selection change) or any additional behavior beyond jumping.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, it covers purpose but lacks explanation of what 'jump to pattern' entails (e.g., does it change the current pattern? any return value?). Without output schema, more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning to the integer parameter by noting 1-based indexing in FL, which the schema lacks. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Jump to' and resource 'pattern', specifying index-based selection. Differentiates from siblings like pattern_jump_to_next/previous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The existence of sibling tools like pattern_jump_to_next implies alternatives but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses note format and conditional auto-open, but does not mention default behavior for clear_first (appending vs overwriting) or possible error conditions. Lacks some behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Only ~100 words, front-loaded with purpose, followed by note format and usage conditions. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations. Description explains input format and prerequisites but omits return values, error handling, and overall behavior for all parameters. Adequate but not complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description compensates by explaining notes array structure (midi, time_bars, duration_bars, velocity range 0..1, optional pan -1..1) and channel's role. However, parameters clear_first and pattern are not described in text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Add notes to a channel's piano roll' with the key qualifier 'works WITHOUT MIDI'. Differentiates from other piano_roll_* tools by focusing on generic note addition, though could be more explicit about distinction from add_arpeggio and add_chord.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit conditional guidance: if channel given and TCP bridge online, auto-opens; otherwise details manual steps. Missing explicit when-not-to-use vs alternatives, but prerequisites are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a total count, which is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. No mention of performance or permissions, but the operation is straightforward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete regarding the core function, but lacks parameter explanation. The sibling tools provide context, but the description could be more precise about the parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one boolean parameter 'global_count' with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'global' in parentheses, implying the parameter controls scope, but does not clarify the meaning when set to false or its effect. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns total channel count, with the clarification 'global = across all groups', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual channels or return lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting the global count, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for aggregate count.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the basic action and accepted input formats, but due to no annotations, it carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the color change is immediate, whether it overwrites existing colors, or any side effects (e.g., visual updates).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes only essential information with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It could mention that the color change applies to the channel's visual representation, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning: 'index' is implied as the channel index, and 'color' is explained with accepted formats. This goes beyond the raw schema, providing useful semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Set') and specifies the resource ('channel color'), along with acceptable color formats ('#RRGGBB' or 'rgb(r,g,b)'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'channel_set_name' or 'channel_set_volume'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention that it sets the color of a specific channel identified by 'index', but this is implicit from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation (returning a count) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. The description is minimal, but the operation's nature is reasonably inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and maximally concise, conveying the essential information in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless tool, the description is adequate. It specifies the output (number of mixer tracks inclusive of master). However, it lacks any mention of return format or type, and there is no output schema to supplement. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies as the description adequately conveys the tool's function without needing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: returns the number of mixer tracks, explicitly including the master track at index 0. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mixer_all_tracks (which lists tracks) and other mixer utilities. The verb is implied (returns) and the resource is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mixer_all_tracks, mixer_track_info, or other mixer queries. For a simple count, context is minimal, but explicit usage conditions or exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists parameters and ranges but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or affects other bands. Since no annotations are present, the description should provide more context about side effects or persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the action and parameter details, wasting no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (4 params, no output schema). The description covers all inputs acceptably with ranges. It does not describe return values but for a setter that is acceptable. Overall, it is almost complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'band' (low/mid/high), 'gain' (-1..1), and 'frequency' (0..1 normalized). However, 'track' is not explained, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'one band of the mixer EQ'. It also distinguishes the band indices (0|1|2) and parameter ranges, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools like mixer_get_eq or mixer_set_volume are clearly different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting a single EQ band but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mixer_get_eq (for reading) or mixer_fx_slots (for FX). No when-not 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns index and name, but does not address edge cases (e.g., no pattern selected), side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description lacks depth beyond the basic output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately delivers the purpose. It is front-loaded with no extraneous words, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It specifies the output elements (index and name), though it could clarify the format or type of the index. Overall, it covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly provides no param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'currently selected pattern', specifying the output (index + name). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pattern_list (lists all) and pattern_select (selects a pattern).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for querying the current pattern's index and name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like pattern_list or pattern_find_by_name, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the basic behavior but does not disclose what happens if there is no undone action (e.g., no-op vs error) or other side effects. The description is accurate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. However, it could mention that it only works after an undo, which is implied but not explicit. Still, it is mostly complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add more since there are no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Redo last undone action.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'project_undo' and 'project_undo_history' by focusing on redoing rather than undoing or listing history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'project_undo' or 'project_undo_history'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a previous undo) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. Merely stating 'toggle' does not specify what changes (e.g., audible metronome state, effect on playback) or any side effects or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple toggle action and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. However, it could briefly mention that the toggle affects the global metronome state, providing a bit more context for users unfamiliar with the DAW.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline score 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'toggle' and the resource 'metronome', making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which target the metronome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the verb 'toggle', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, some guidance is acceptable, but it lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (BPM, key, timings, transcription) and explains polyphonic vs monophonic transcription, including the requirement for the 'polyphonic' extra. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or any potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: supported formats, return values, and transcription options. No wordiness or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main features and supported formats but lacks details on the return format (e.g., JSON, dictionary keys). No output schema exists, so the description should clarify how results are structured. Error conditions or performance costs are not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly links the 'polyphonic' parameter to its effect and mentions 'optional notes' (likely tied to extract_melody). However, it does not explicitly describe the 'path' parameter or confirm that extract_melody controls transcription. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and specifies the resource as 'audio file', listing concrete analyses: tempo, key, onsets, loudness, optional notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like audio_slice or audio_melody_to_piano_roll.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for extracting musical features from audio files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audio_slice, voice_transcribe_file). No when-not or comparison to siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description reveals that it returns a JSON with boolean fields for each bridge's health. However, it does not disclose if the tool performs network calls or has side effects, which limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and a code block showing the return structure. Every element is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output structure is provided, the description lacks explanations of what 'online' and 'installed' fields mean or what 'available_capabilities' contains. Although no output schema exists, more context would improve completeness for a health-check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter info, which is acceptable; baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Report health of BOTH bridges' and provides the output structure with fields for midi_bridge and piano_roll, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not specify when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like fl_reconnect or fl_bridge_info. Usage is implied for health checking, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a simple read operation but doesn't disclose whether all clips are returned at once, what constitutes a 'clip', or any prerequisites. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Every word is necessary. Perfectly concise for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the core function but omits details about the return format and prerequisites (e.g., active playlist). Could be more complete for an agent to use robustly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the track parameter as an optional filter. However, it doesn't specify the integer value's meaning (e.g., track index). Compensates well for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('clips in the playlist'), and an optional filter ('one track'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like playlist_list_markers and playlist_all_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning optional filtering, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other list tools. No alternatives 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the return format but does not disclose potential behavior like sorting, performance impact, or whether markers are returned in a specific order. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description specifies the return format, it does not explain the meaning of the fields (e.g., what 'mode' represents). Given no output schema, additional context on field semantics would improve completeness. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description naturally cannot add parameter semantics. Per guidelines, baseline 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all timeline markers with a specific data structure ([{pos_bars, name, mode}]), which is a specific verb (Return) and resource (timeline markers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like playlist_add_marker and playlist_delete_marker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to list markers, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to list before deleting or adding markers). No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'Stop playback' without explaining behavior like whether it resets position, works during recording, or requires playback to be active.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) and front-loaded. Every word is earned, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is basic but misses nuanced context such as side effects or dependencies on other transport states.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Stop playback' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling transport tools like transport_play and transport_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to stop playback) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For a simple stop action, this is adequate but lacks exclusion details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is pure-Python and does not require audio extras, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing piano roll content (though the 'clear_first' parameter defaults to true, it's not mentioned). More detail on side effects or prerequisites would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and optional features, followed by a use case and implementation note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose and context for usage but does not explain return values, error conditions, or detailed parameter interactions. It is adequate for selection but not for full invocation understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'scale snapping, transposition, quantize' which correspond to some parameters (scale/scale_root, transpose_semitones, quantize_grid_sec), adding meaning. However, it does not describe the required 'notes' parameter format, 'bpm', or 'clear_first' behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'push[es] an already-transcribed note list into the piano roll', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (like voice_to_piano_roll) by emphasizing that it works with pre-transcribed notes and offers optional transformations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: 'when you want Claude to inspect the raw transcription first, tweak it, then send a cleaned-up version.' It also references the source tool (voice_record_and_transcribe). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden. It explains that points are sequenced live with REC flags to create a real automation clip, providing some insight. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., transport state, arm condition) and potential destructiveness (e.g., overwriting existing automation).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, follow-up with parameter details. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficiently communicates key points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and parameter format. However, missing behavioral details like whether it creates a new clip or modifies existing, and edge cases (minimum points, BPM limits). Still, it is mostly complete given the context of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's explanation of the points format (list of {time_bars: float, bpm: float}) adds critical meaning beyond the vague array-of-objects schema. It clarifies expected keys and types, though constraints like ordering or valid ranges are omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Record an automation ramp on the master tempo', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling automation record tools (e.g., channel, mixer, plugin) by explicitly naming the target as master tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for master tempo automation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states it returns built-in drum patterns but lacks details on return format or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core behavior, though return type or format could be specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters; description does not need to add parameter info, and baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'return' and resource 'drum patterns', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gen_list_scales or gen_list_chord_qualities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives; usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description is minimal but sufficient for a simple read-only list operation, disclosing the return format. Does not mention side effects or edge cases, but for a list tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains only essential information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description provides the return format, which is adequate for a simple list. Does not mention ordering or potential empty results, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the return structure, which is not covered by the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of all patterns with specific fields (index, name, color, length), which is a distinct purpose from sibling tools that modify or query individual patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied as a read-only list operation, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like pattern_count or pattern_current. No when-not or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates a read-only query with no side effects, listing the exact state variables. Without annotations, it effectively communicates the tool's behavior. Minor omission on potential failure conditions, but adequate for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence listing key fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is retrieved. Could include format details (e.g., position in beats or time) but not strictly necessary for an agent familiar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (empty input schema), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it retrieves specific transport state fields (is_playing, is_recording, position, loop mode, tempo, signature), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like transport_play or transport_set_tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transport_set_tempo for setting values; the description solely lists returned fields without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'accumulates' hinting multiple taps needed, but omits details like reset behavior, tap count, or timeout. Adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Every word serves a purpose: verb, event type, behavior. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, description covers the core purpose and behavior. Could add tap interval or reset info, but still fairly complete given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning beyond empty schema by explaining the accumulating effect. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description earns it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Send' and object 'tap-tempo event', clearly stating it accumulates to set BPM. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transport_set_tempo which directly sets BPM, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use to set BPM by tapping. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., transport_set_tempo), nor when not to use. Lacks exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a read-only list action, but the description does not clarify whether the list is static or dynamic, or whether it requires any permissions. The simplicity of the tool partially mitigates this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It front-loads the key action and outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects. It states what is returned but does not elaborate on the output structure (e.g., array format). Still, it is mostly complete for a basic list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. As per guidelines, the baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly states the resource ('available microphones') and the data returned ('indexes + names + default flag'). It distinguishes from sibling voice tools like voice_record_and_transcribe, which handle audio capture rather than device enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool's simple purpose implies it should be used to discover microphone options before recording or transcription. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, making usage somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about starting a subprocess to avoid blocking and lists GUI features, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like whether opening multiple instances is allowed, error conditions, or system requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences: the first clearly states the action, and the second provides necessary details about non-blocking behavior and features. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, non-blocking execution, and GUI features. It could improve by noting if the GUI is modal, how to close it, or behavior if already open, but it is largely complete for a launcher tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description explains the purpose and features beyond the empty schema, adding value by detailing what the GUI contains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Launch the interactive Voice-to-MIDI GUI' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling voice tools like voice_list_devices or voice_notes_to_piano_roll, which do not involve launching a GUI.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an interactive GUI is desired but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, such as voice_to_piano_roll or voice_notes_to_piano_roll. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description fully discloses behavior: records audio, returns raw notes + temp WAV path, plays beeps (3 short+1 long at start, 1 at stop), explains polyphonic engine option and its dependency. Covers audio cues and return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with core purpose, then return info, use case, beeps, polyphonic details. Efficient but could trim some detail; overall well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality, return values, audio cues, and polyphonic option. Missing explanations for 4 parameters and no error/prerequisite info. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description explains only duration_sec and polyphonic but not device, min_note_sec, fmin_hz, fmax_hz. Incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it records microphone for specified duration and transcribes, with explicit use case 'inspect transcription before touching piano roll'. Distinguishes from siblings like voice_transcribe_file and voice_notes_to_piano_roll.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context for when to use ('inspect transcription before touching piano roll') and explains polyphonic vs monophonic options. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool records audio, transcribes it using pyin or Spotify Basic Pitch, writes notes to the piano roll, and returns results including a WAV path. It also mentions optional scale snapping, quantization, and the clear_first behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is write-only (mutates the project) or that permission may be needed for mic input.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a one-liner summary, then an Args section, then a Returns section. It is front-loaded with a sentence that immediately conveys the tool's high-level function. While the Args block is lengthy, it is necessary for the 11 parameters and is clearly formatted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (11), lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, explains return values, and even notes dependencies (polyphonic extra). It leaves little ambiguity about how the tool operates or what the agent should expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so comprehensively in the Args block, detailing each parameter's purpose, acceptable values, defaults, and constraints (e.g., quantize_grid_sec examples with BPM, polyphonic dependency). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear and specific verb+resource: 'Hum/play a melody into the mic, get it written straight into FL's piano roll.' This immediately and precisely communicates the tool's purpose, distinguishing it as an audio-to-MIDI tool for FL Studio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 its siblings, such as 'audio_melody_to_piano_roll' or 'voice_record_and_transcribe.' It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where alternatives would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation ("Return"), which is transparent. No annotations exist, but the description does not contradict typical behavior for a query tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the return value (index and name) but omits format details. However, for a straightforward query, it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is trivially 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current arrangement index and name. It is specific and distinct from siblings like arrangement_list which lists all arrangements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the current arrangement info is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the core behavior (nudge playhead by steps, negative backward) but does not mention edge cases (e.g., boundaries during playback, effect on playback state, or error handling). It is minimally adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the parameter. Every word is purposeful: 'Nudge' (action), 'playhead' (resource), 'by steps 16th-notes' (unit), 'negative = backward' (direction). No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information. It explains what the tool does and how the parameter works. However, it could mention whether it works during playback or at the song boundaries to be fully complete. Still, it is largely sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only the parameter name 'steps' (type integer) with 0% description coverage. The description significantly adds value by specifying the unit ('16th-notes') and the meaning of sign ('negative = backward'). This clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema, enabling correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Nudge playhead') and the resource ('playhead'), with the incremental nature and unit ('by `steps` 16th-notes'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like transport_set_position which sets absolute position, and transport_play/stop which control playback. The verb 'nudge' implies relative movement, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: the tool is for incremental playhead movement in 16th-note steps, with negative values for backward. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the contrast with absolute positioning tools (e.g., transport_set_position) is implicit. An AI agent would understand to use this for relative jogging, not for jumping to a specific time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Return song length' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or whether it requires any state. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output units. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could mention return format or that it returns a single value vs. separate values per unit, but it's sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (schema is empty with 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the units of the returned value, which is helpful beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns song length and enumerates the specific units (ticks, seconds, ms, bars, steps). It distinguishes from siblings like transport_status, which returns current position and playback state, not length.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when song length in various units is needed) and there is no ambiguity with siblings since no other tool returns length. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but the purpose is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: case-insensitivity and return format ({index, name} or null). It does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or error handling, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence that efficiently states action, input constraints, and output. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: operation, input requirement, return type, and case-sensitivity. It is self-sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the tool description itself explains the 'name' parameter by stating the tool finds by exact name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. The single required parameter is well-contextualized.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource 'pattern by exact name' including case-insensitivity and return format. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pattern_list which lists all patterns, and pattern_select which selects by index.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you have an exact name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pattern_list or pattern_count. No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the analysis steps, drum generation, optional melody/bass addition, and that everything goes into the current piano roll. However, it does not mention the side effect of clearing the channel (clear_first parameter) or potential overwrites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise and well-structured, with purpose stated first followed by a numbered pipeline. Every sentence adds value, though some minor trimming could be done without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a fairly complete picture of the tool's behavior and output. It explains the pipeline and limitations (single channel, routing needed). Minor gaps exist for parameters like clear_first and dnb_style.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for about 5 of 8 parameters (target_bpm, dnb_bars, include_melody, polyphonic, include_bass). It explains polyphonic captures chords and melody quantization. Missing parameters like audio_path and dnb_style are not explained, but the description compensates reasonably.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'take any audio file and turn it into a DnB flip in the FL piano roll'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the pipeline distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle analysis or generation separately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear pipeline and a note about routing for proper mixing, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears transparency. It honestly states it returns the current selection or null, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description sufficiently covers the tool's return value. However, it could be slightly more precise about what the returned 'channel' refers to (e.g., name or index), especially since there is no output schema. Still, given the simplicity, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the currently selected channel (or null). The verb 'Return' and resource 'currently selected channel' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like channel_all (lists all channels) and channel_info (info about a specific channel) by focusing on the selection state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is implied, the description does not provide when-not or list alternative tools for similar tasks, such as channel_info for details about a specific channel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description clearly indicates it checks reachability/installation. Behavior is straightforward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status check with no parameters and no output schema, description fully covers what agent needs to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning beyond schema by stating purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'report' and resource 'file-based piano-roll bridge', clearly distinguishing from sibling editing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'before issuing edits'. No alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Force playlist repaint' indicates a UI refresh operation, which is non-destructive. The behavior is transparently described 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No additional details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'force playlist repaint' and clarifies the context 'use after bulk edits'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other playlist actions like add, delete, or list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('after bulk edits'), providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately discloses the tool's behavior as a read-only operation returning a version string, with no destructive or side effects, and no annotations to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words, maximizing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool returning a simple string, the description fully captures what is needed; no output schema is required as the return value is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description adds no parameter information, but the schema already covers 100% and parameters are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the FL Studio version string, specifying the verb 'Return' and the exact resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description is clear about what the tool does, and given its simplicity and lack of alternatives for version retrieval, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Boyan253/fl-studio-2025-ai-bridge'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server