piano_roll_read

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.