Analizar estructura MIDI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by listing exactly what is read (notes, tempo, structural defects), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or side effects beyond being read-only, but the added detail is valuable.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It has no redundant or unnecessary words, and every part adds meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description's concise coverage of what it does and its read-only nature is largely sufficient. However, the lack of any parameter guidance leaves a small but notable gap for a tool that relies on a file path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention midi_path at all. The agent gets no additional meaning about the parameter beyond its name and type string, which is insufficient for a tool that requires a file path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Lee' (reads) and identifies the resource (notas, tempo, y defectos estructurales). It also explicitly states 'no escribe archivos' to distinguish from write tools, which clarifies its scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like clean_midi_files.

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 clearly implies this tool is for read-only analysis ('Lee... no escribe archivos'), providing a clear context for when to use it (analyzing MIDI structure). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use it, stopping short of full alternative guidance.

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